Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SECRET SESSION

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill

NEW CLAUSE.—(Political controversy.)

Section forty of the Army Act (which relates to conduct to prejudice of military discipline) shall be amended by adding at the end thereof the words:
Provided that taking part in political controversy whilst off duty shall not be deemed conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline within the meaning of this section."—[Captain Cunningham-Reid.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In this Clause we are asking that the soldier be given a measure of justice that is long overdue and that he shall have the right, while off duty, of publicly expressing his views on what he is fighting for and what he hopes for after the war. If this principle is accepted, the proposed Clause may not be the best means of implementing it, but that can, of course, easily be adjusted. I only mention that point because I hope that any hon. Member who may be opposed to this principle will not attempt to sidetrack the issue by saying that the proposed Clause would not have the effect desired. It stands to reason that, if the principle is accepted, ways and means can easily be found of implementing it.
I think I can best advance the arguments in favour of the principle for which we are asking and which I have already indicated, by examining the arguments that may be levelled against the reform that we are demanding. It might be said, and I expect it will be said, that it is considered advisable for soldiers to keep out of the political arena.

Mr. Petherick: Hear, hear.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: There is, anyhow, one hon. Member who is of that opinion. If he intended to make a speech on the subject, possibly I may be able to save him the trouble, because I hope that the reasons that I am going to put against that argument will convince him. In my opinion, that particular argument that soldiers should keep out of the political arena has whiskers on it. It dates back to the time when the Army was largely made up of men who joined voluntarily, because the Army was a profession, and, who as a result, gave up certain citizen rights. Nobody can say that the conditions which existed when these regulations were formulated exist now. The Army of to-day is largely made up of civilians, who have been temporarily put into uniform by the Government, in order that they may fight for us. We should be grateful, and we are grateful, to these men in the Army, for what they are doing, but do the Government now show their gratitude, by saying, in effect: "You can fight for us; you can be mutilated and you can die for your ideals; but, in the meantime, you may, on no account, attempt to shape the kind of ideals you are fighting for, not even when you are off duty and out of uniform." If that is the kind of reasoning which is going on at the War Office, it is a very "pixilated" reasoning and, I think, extremely dangerous.
The opponents of this reform might be generous enough at this juncture to concede: "Well, you have got something in that argument, but, anyhow, a soldier must not, in any circumstances, be allowed publicly to criticise his own Service." Let me say at once that I would concede the justice of that apprehension. King's Regulations should continue to make any such public criticism an offence; but let the soldier publicly debate anything else he likes.

Mr. Petherick: Would my hon. and gallant Friend allow the soldier to debate, for instance, the conduct of the Royal Air Force?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In no circumstances. The Bill concerns the Royal Air Force as well. Perhaps I ought to have prefaced my remarks by saying that if the proposed concession is given to the soldier, it must be given to everybody else in the Services and that therefore the soldier could, in no circumstances, be allowed to criticise any branch of the Services.
Another argument that might be put forward is that soldiers do not want this right. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg) is not in his usual place, because I think it was he who, on some previous occasion, made the statement that, in his opinion and from his experience, the soldiers do not want the right for which we are asking. I wondered at the time how he came to that conclusion. I do not believe that the ordinary soldier confides everything to his officer, and anyhow, I think it is a very brave man indeed, who claims to know the mind of every one of the millions of men who are in the Army. All I know, having raised this same matter on the appropriate occasion last year, is that I got a spate of letters from members of the Forces, which convinces me that a great number of people in the Army would like to have this right. Let us, however, presume for the moment that the hon. Member for Oxford has some occult powers and is able to read the minds of all the millions of men in the Army. Even though that sweeping assumption were accorded, it is still no argument for depriving the soldiers of a right that, in justice, they are entitled to, should they desire to exercise it.
It might even be claimed that morale and discipline could be adversely affected if soldiers were allowed, when off duty, publicly to express their political beliefs. I would be prepared to say—and I would take ten to one on it at this moment—that no representative of the War Office would dare to stand at that Box and make such an assertion, for he would know better than anybody, that the surest way to impair morale and discipline in the Forces is to stifle grievances, and that to allow grievances to be ventilated is a safety valve. I think we know the truth of that

full well in the House of Commons. If it were not for the fact that we are able to let off steam now and again here, it would be a very bad thing for Democracy. Assuming for the moment, however, that that contention—

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, but I think he said a little earlier that a soldier or an airman should not be allowed to criticise military operations. If he proposes to allow soldiers to hold meetings and air their grievances, even though they are not on military matters, does that still not constitute criticism of the "higher-ups"? Is the hon. and gallant Member against that criticism?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that they have no right to air any grievances where Service matters are concerned, but I think they should have the right to air grievances as to the attitude of the Government on the Beveridge Report, the Four-year Plan and anything like that—anything except what has to do with their own Services.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can my hon. and gallant Friend define some of these phrases before he goes any further? What is meant by "political controversy"? What exactly does it mean, in the view of my hon. and gallant Friend?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I really should have thought the meaning was quite clear. So far as the soldier is concerned, political controversy would mean any form of controversy relating to politics, that did not concern the Services. Perhaps I might return to the point I was making, which was that it would be difficult to claim that, if the soldiers were given the proposed advantage, it would be bad for morale and discipline. It is generally agreed that that would not be the case. Why, in Heaven's name, just for the sake of obstinacy and of clinging to an outworn tradition, deny to the citizen soldier—after all, he is a citizen soldier—something which could do no harm and might do a great deal of good, and which ought to be his by right—that is to say, if we are indeed fighting for democracy? Many people are beginning to have doubts about this. I think that


I have every justification for saying that those doubts have been materially increased this week by the alarming realisation that a majority vote of the people's representatives in Parliament counts for nothing.
As things are now, the regulations concerning a soldier's political behaviour are farcical. In the first place, they are so unfair that nothing the authorities can do will prevent these out-of-date regulations being continuously defied. Only the other day we heard from an hon. and gallant Member who has recently come here, that when he was in the Air Force he defied these regulations, and I recollect that in a recent Debate several hon. Members gave instances in which that was being done all the time. On the other hand, there are prosecutions from time to time. These regulations are so unfair and so nebulous that they are, all the time, being flouted. That fact, in itself, is not conducive to very good discipline in the Army.
We also have the absurd anomaly that a soldier can express his views from the largest platform imaginable, that is, the Press, but he is denied the right to express identical views from the platform of a small village hall at Muddleton-on-the-Mud, or some such place as that. Further, it has been stated by a War Office Minister—and this is an important point—that a soldier on leave, and in mufti, can ask questions at a poltical meeting provided that the meeting is in his own constituency. If he can do that in his own constituency, why in the name of reason is he forced to remain dumb at a meeting in another constituency if he is anxious for some information? There might, for example, be a General Election before the end of the war. The soldier's constituency might be in the North of Scotland and he would not have facilities, or be given the opportunity, to visit his constituency. But he might want to know the view of the official party represented by a certain candidate. The official view is put forward by all the candidates of a party all over the country. The policy is, more or less, the same. He may not be able to get it from the candidate for whom he himself will be voting or not voting as the case may be, but by going to a meeting in another constituency which is within reach, and asking questions of a candidate there, he can get the information to which he is entitled.
The point has been established that a soldier in his constituency can ask questions, but then again what is a question? That seems to require a considerable amount of defining. I think that you, Mr. Williams, with your great experience, would have considerable difficulty in deciding sometimes in this Committee, what is the precise psychological moment when a question is not a speech. We know perfectly well that if we are a little astute we can often make a speech in the form of a question. If a soldier in mufti attends a public meeting, do hon. Members mean to say that the chairman there has the same experience as the Chairman of this Committee, and has the authority to say, if that soldier asks a question "I know that you are a soldier in mufti. Your question is becoming a speech. You must stop or you will get into trouble?" The whole thing is farcical. What it boils down to is this: As things are now, a soldier is entitled to express his political views in the Press, and, in certain circumstances, he can speak at a public meeting, if he is cute enough to preface his remarks my saying "I would like to ask" or something like that, and put it in the form of a question. Taking it all in all, is it not rather petty on the part of the. Government to say that a soldier can express political views in the Press, but cannot express the same views at a public meeting unless he puts them in the form of a question? I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way on this occasion to make this concession. It is a small concession, but it can have a large beneficial result. It will give immense satisfaction to a large number of people, and there is no sound justification for withholding this right from those to whom we owe so much.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: On a point of Order. As the Committee will notice, there are four new Clauses on the Paper dealing with the matters which have been generally traversed by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid). Is it possible to have a general discussion upon these Clauses? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has dealt with one of the regulations which is referred to in a later Clause. Is it permissible to deal with the Clauses as a whole, or are you, Mr. Williams, limiting debate now to the proposal which is before the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): My intention was to select only the first new Clause, and that we should have on it a discussion which would be wide enough to cover the principle that those who are in the Services can take part in politics. That is my Ruling, and I hope it will be wide enough to allow a fair discussion on these various Clauses, and cover those not selected.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I have put my name to the new Clause we are discussing because I raised this matter recently with the Financial Secretary to the War Office on the Adjournment, and in his reply, the hon. and learned Gentleman more or less invited me to do this. I am glad to take this opportunity of bringing this matter before the Committee again, not in the spirit of an opponent of the Government, but because I think that this is something which should concern every hon. and right hon. Member of this Committee. I feel, as one who has come here quite recently from a term of service in the Army, that I have a special duty to represent the view of those in the Services with whom I have worked, and I can speak only for those I have personally known in representing this view to the Committee. One of my first recollections of coming into contact with the Army Act was this: Soon after I joined, the Adjutant of the unit drew our attention to this Act, and having told us various things we were not entitled to do, said, "Do not blame this on us the professional soldiers. This is your business. It is the House of Commons, elected by the people of Britain, that gave the authority for this. "So, by circumstances, I am now in a position of being able to try to influence the Committee on this particular matter.
I hope we have got over the difficulty which was raised when this matter came up last year, which was that it was inexpedient to add to Section 40 of the Army Act, because I have put down a new Clause which gets over that objection. However, seeing that we are having a wide debate I think I can make all the points I want to make on this proposal and I do not think this difficulty to which I have referred need arise. It seems to me that the effect of this proposed addition to Section 4o, if passed, would be that King's Regulations would have to be altered, and that is really

what we are asking the right hon. Gentleman opposite to do. I would remind him also that this is not something which will go on for ever and ever. We are talking, primarily, about the war-time Army and any alteration we make now will be made for one year only. If, in 12 months, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, he can seek to reverse any decision made to-day. Let us regard this therefore as dealing with the conditions of war.
The question might arise of why we should wish to amend the King's Regulations, by inserting an addition to the Army Act which would have that effect. It is for this reason: King's Regulations do forbid party political activity. There can be no doubt about that at all in anybody's mind. There is this rather strange anomaly, that a soldier is entitled, as an individual, to take part in politics. There is nothing in King's Regulations to stop a soldier or an officer getting up, as an individual, and making the most revolutionary and outrageous speech; and if he had the means to hire a hall, or public speaking apparatus, he could speak to a large number of persons. But when three or four people get together and form an organisation or a party, it is prohibited. That is an anomaly of a very serious kind. It means that the sort of political activity which leads to good government—people of like minds getting together in a party or organisation, and I do not see how the House of Commons would function without parties--is ruled out, but an individual who may be an eccentric, can engage in politics. This is only one of the anomalies to which attention has been drawn in this Committee time and time again.
Never once, as far as I am aware, has the right hon. Gentleman or his Financial Secretary tried to justify the ban in King's Regulations. An impression has been given to the Committee that there was a fair amount of latitude and that the interpretation was not to be taken too literally in the case of this regulation. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman on occasions to try to clarify the position by the issue of a War Office letter or Army Council Instruction of some sort. That has been refused, and it was thrown back at me on the last occasion, that there is an overriding paragraph right at


the front of King's Regulations which says that the whole of the regulations must be interpreted reasonably and intelligently, by commanding officers. I quite agree that that is a very important thing, but on this particular matter of political activity it seems to me it is very difficult for a commanding officer to interpret the regulations reasonably and intelligently, because it is on these matters that people disagree very violently indeed. What one man would think to be reasonable I would think to be very unreasonable.
I think that the only safe thing for a commanding officer to do is to look a little higher up in that paragraph to which I have referred, to the passage in which it is painted out that it is his duty to see that these regulations are strictly observed. If that means anything at all, it means that party political activity on the part of those subject to military law is ruled out. As one who has served, I feel very strongly that if is wrong that this responsibility should be placed on the individual commanding officer. He is being asked to make a very difficult choice. He has to ask himself, "Am I to allow this man to carry on with political activity to a certain degree, and then stop him; or am I to come down on it altogether?" I do not think that that decision should be left to those who have other, and more pressing, duties. That decision should be made by the House of Commons. That is why I, and others, seek to alter the decision which was made 12 months ago. We have this annual discussion, because Members of the House have a right and a duty to keep these matters constantly under review. My experience is that there is a great deal of resentment in the Forces to-day against this regulation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that, because I know that the Intelligence Corps of the Army take note of what is said on political matters by those who are serving, and I am sure they will have informed him that there is a good deal of interest in politics and great resentment over this ban.
I come to my detailed reasons for saying that we should amend this regulation. I shall have to reiterate arguments which I used not long ago, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, but I make no apology. The right hon. Gentle-

man the Secretary of State for War is now here, and this is an occasion for a longer Debate. The arguments which I used on the Adjournment were not replied to; I hope that, before this Debate is over, I shall hear the Government's view on those arguments, and I hope that other hon. Members will support me, as they were not able to do in that short Adjournment Debate. It seems to me that what we are asking for the soldier—the rights of free speech and free association for political ends—are fundamental human rights, over which the House of Commons has no jurisdiction, because the authority and the power of the House spring from the existence of these fundamental human rights. If it were not for freedom of speech and of political association, Parliamentary democracy would not have come into being, and Parliament could not function. There is one thing which you cannot do with democracy, and that is destroy it.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am not so sure.

Mr. H. Lawson: When, with democratic machinery, you come to the point of trying to destroy democracy, you are not practising democracy. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they will have an opportunity of rebutting this point, and I hope that if they do not agree with me, they will take that opportunity. I may be simple-minded, but to me this seems fundamental; and it is something which I will maintain, whatever other hon. Members say about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that these are the most precious and fundamental rights of our British citizenship? That seems to me to be the kernel of the whole matter. Having dealt with the general case, I must go into some of the details. The regulation which forbids a soldier to take part in party politics is valid, I think, in peacetime, only on these grounds: not because it is something which the Executive impose on the soldier, but because it is a contract entered into voluntarily between the soldier and the State, as his employer. In taking on a new situation, with your eyes open, you are entitled, as an individual, to restrict your action in any way you like.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the hon. Member aware that King's Regulations may be altered from time to time?

Mr. H. Lawson: Yes, I quite agree; and it supports my contention that now is the time to alter them. But if, in an important matter like this, King's Regulations allowed political activity in a peace-time Army, and then were altered to deny political activity, a soldier or an officer would be perfectly justified in coming out of the Army, because he could not accept the new conditions. These conditions are justified only because they are a contract entered into voluntarily, in peace-time, between the soldier and the State. In circumstances which are very different, when the voluntary principle is removed from military service and people are conscripted by force of law, this justification does not exist. When a man, during the war, has thrown up his civilian occupation and joined the Army, simply because he felt that there was a very urgent need and it was his bounden duty to do so, I think he would be right in making mental reservations about this Clause in the Regulations. I hope that hon. Members will not make out that I am asking that the relaxation which I urge, should apply only to those who have come in by conscription. I do not think that at all.
What happens in practice to-day? We are all aware that this regulation is becoming a dead letter. All who have had contact with the Services know that political activity is taking place. People are speaking, asking questions, taking part in by-elections, and that sort of thing. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if this goes on, it is bound, sooner or later, to undermine discipline. That is a very strong argument for bringing the regulations into line with the accepted practice. Some of the best and keenest soldiers and officers disregard this regulation most. It is not difficult to see why. There is a very great connection between one's understanding of the tremendous issues at stake in this conflict, and one's keenness to get the war won as quickly as possible. The Army Council have recognised that and have instituted the Army Bureau of Current Affairs, which has sought, successfully, I think, to awaken the interest of all ranks in the issues behind this struggle. I think that those who are most politically aware of what is going on, and who do not regard the war simply as some tragedy which just happened, but understand the causes and are seeking to combat those causes as

well as the actual symptoms, make the best soldiers. These people who are turning their minds to political analysis, are bound to want to express this political outlook in other ways. This appears to me to be of supreme importance in the consideration of this question.
Having dealt with the main and overriding principles, of which I think there can be no real rebuttal, I want to refer to some specific points which bear on this Amendment. We have made rather a lot of preparing for the soldier, whether at home or overseas, the chance to cast his vote at the next General Election. The indications are that this General Election will take place during the war. In any case, we must make special provision for that election. There is a Motion on the Order Paper which deals with that. This is one of the smaller issues contained in the bigger one. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, even if he will not accept the larger proposition, at least to accept one of these lesser ones, making special provision for the next General Election. I would recall that when this House was debating Electoral Reform, it was stated, on both sides, that there was great anxiety that candidates should be selected who had served in the Forces. No one would ask that there should be a greater proportion of such candidates than of candidates from other sections of the community, but it is obvious that at the next General Election there will be a great number of candidates who have served in the Army. A ban on political activity in the Forces means that the only people who can get into a position of being adopted, will be those who are able to do so because of their privilege, their wealth, their ambition, or their push. That is a very wrong way of choosing Parliamentary candidates, and so of choosing Members of Parliament.

Mr. Granville: Is the hon. Member suggesting that if the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Conservative party, the Secretary of State for War, as an Independent, or as a member of the Conservative Party, and General Montgomery, as a potential member of Common Wealth, all went down and made speeches to a large number of troops, and the troops of a particular regiment went to that political meeting and asked questions, they would be regarded as having taken part in politics?

Mr. H. Lawson: If King's Regulations are to be interpreted literally, I think they would. But I am unable to see what the hon. Member's point has to do with what I was saying. I was pointing out that there will have to be a considerable number of candidates drawn from those who are serving in the Armed Forces. If political activity is banned, it means that they cannot be chosen in the most satisfactory way, because what is the only test of who is a suitable man to stand for Parliament? Surely, it is that a man has proved his worth to his political colleagues and shown himself to be a man of political integrity and understanding, and so on, and he can only do this by taking part in political work day by day in some sort of democratic association. I think the democratic bodies of the country are in support of this House, and I do feel that that is a very important point which we cannot neglect at a time like this, when the country will be faced with a General Election, the first for a large number of years. Changes of a more radical nature than we have had to face, I think, for a very long time in the past are coming on, and when, inevitably, a large mass of legislation has not been put forward because it has been controversial.
I must put a point why I think the ban should be removed. I have searched in my own mind to see if there are any valid reasons why it should remain, and I cannot find them. The point has been raised against the removal of the ban that it would destroy discipline. I do not think that is valid at all, because it is made quite clear that there is no intention in our minds that political activity, party activity, should be used to discuss immediate Service matters. That may be difficult to achieve, but, surely, the dangers on the other side are very great indeed, and I feel that this is a matter which must be left, to some extent, to the voluntary restraint of the person subject to military law. Another objection is that the Army, as a body, might become a political force or a political party in the country. I do not think that is likely to happen, because you have a great diversity of views in the Army. It is not as if the Army is composed of one political view. You have every shade of view, and I am speaking just as much for those who hold the views of hon.

Members opposite as for those who hold views similar to my own.
In the final analysis, if you look at what has taken place in some European countries in recent years, the only basis for the final preservation of democracy is if your Army believe in democracy and understand it, and I am very anxious that our Army should have a firm conviction that democracy is a right and good thing. They can only do that, I am quite sure, by practising democracy, that is, by being members of a political party and by taking part in political activity in an unfettered sort of way. I think we can sum it up in this way. What sort of soldiers do we want to win the war? What sort of citizens do we want to win the peace afterwards? It seems that, amongst others, we have got to have these qualities—real independence of mind, and men and women who really have the courage of their own convictions. These are the qualities on which we want to build a reasonable society after the war.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, in his speech, has been in Order, but I do not think that, on this Motion, we are entitled to discuss the qualities that we want in a soldier, because, if so, we shall have an immensely wide discussion right outside the scope of this new Clause.

Mr. H. Lawson: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and I will not press that point. I must just refer, however, to one last point, which arose, to some extent, out of the Adjournment Debate. The Financial Secretary, in reply to me, said that he hoped that, on reflection, I should regret having made a certain statement, and I want to assure him that my position has always been perfectly clear. I did not get up and say what I did without thinking out what I was going to say. My position is this. I tried to make it perfectly clear to the House that I did not think that this particular regulation, forbidding political activity, has any real validity at all on the basis of the fundamental rights of mankind. Therefore, if a person, in the Forces or not, asks me if I believe the regulation has any validity, I have to say, honestly, that I do not. I am not coming to the Minister on my knees and asking him for a concession, but I ask him if he will put his


regulation in line with what is the real right of a free people. I must remind the Committee that, throughout history, there have always been cases in which the legislature, on the one side, and individuals, on the other, have been in conflict on these matters. Those in power have said "You, or you, cannot speak 01 organise politically," and what has been the verdict of history afterwards? It has been this: Those who have had the courage of their convictions and, in spite of penalties, have exercised their right of free speech, are the people who have developed the ideals for which we are fighting now.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I personally think it is a good thing that the hon. Gentlemen who put down this Clause from their own angle have given the Committee an opportunity of discussing this Bill, because it is a very important Bill in the Constitution of this country and deals with matters that affect not only those in the Services but the general citizens of the country as well. While it is true that we ought, in the interests of the soldier, to pay attention to his rights, it is also true that, while considering the historical development of this body of law affecting the soldier, we should also consider the rights of civilians who, though not in the Forces, are, by implication, involved in this issue. With much of what has been said, in general, I agree. This is a time of emergency, and the men in the Forces at this extraordinary time, ought in a general way, to have, within strictly laid down limits, opportunities of expressing themselves. I was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) say that he had had masses of complaints. I know that there was one complaint, which was dealt with quite recently in this House by my hon. Friend, my namesake, who has just spoken. I was surprised to hear a recital of that case affecting the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). On the surface, I did not like the sound of it, but my own experience is quite different from that of the hon. Member. I get no complaints, and I think I am in as close contact with my constituency and its soldiers as any hon. Member.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The hon. Member says he got no complaints on

the matter brought up in the House, but he was one of those who did not champion the cause.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: If I might go further than I have done, I think my years of activity in this House have at least kept me in touch with Servicemen and ex-Servicemen as much as any hon. Member of this House. Even further than that, is this fact, that I do not suppose there is any part of this country in which the right to exercise the liberties of the ordinary citizen are claimed more strongly than they are for those civilians and soldiers who come from the North of England—Durham and Northumberland. I represent a county in which, I suppose, the ordinary civilian and, particularly, the miner, is in as close contact With the men in his own county regiment as anywhere in Great Britain. The Durham miners sent a couple of thousand pounds to the members of the Durham Light Infantry overseas. We have regular contact with them, and I venture to say that the Durham Light Infantry soldier knows as much about the Durham Miners' Association's business as the Durham Miners' Association knows about the soldiers' business. It is not only unique, but a very warm relationship has grown up over the years and particularly during this war. So I say that I have not received complaints of the kind the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had, but I want to say to him, and to remind the Minister, that this is a time of emergency. In conditions which are unique great masses of citizens are serving in the Forces, both men and women, and I should say, generally, that it is an occasion for riding with a loose rein, if I may use the term, because the hon. Member himself, in his speech, said that, in fact, the soldier was exercising all the liberties for which they are asking.

Mr. H. Lawson: But at the peril of disciplinary action—a very unsatisfactory situation, which undermines their position.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: All I am saying is that, in my experience, there is no complaint on that score from the soldier himself. I did not like the sound of the case raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I heard the whole discussion the other day. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that these hon. Members are not asking for a Clause to be put into the Bill to deal


with the situation during the war. They are asking for something to be put in. to deal with it permanently.

Mr. H. Lawson: I made it clear that it concerned war-time conditions, and what we are asking can only go on for 12 months and must then be renewed.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: The fact remains that peace might come upon us at any time, and there is no guarantee that the hon. Members want to get this for temporary purposes or that they are not going to be as active towards making it a permanent factor in the body of military law. Quite frankly, that is what I am afraid of. I am very much afraid of it, and I am speaking, not as an individual, but as one representing a great party, which, I hope, will become the Government of this country some day. I want to ask—where are we getting to? My heart goes out, and I am sure everybody's heart goes out, to the hon. Gentleman when he says he wants to exercise the ancient liberties of this kingdom. He wants the ordinary person, the citizen soldier, to exercise it, but it is not as simple as it appears on the surface. It would not do any harm to examine where it might take us. I remember, when I was working in the mine about 3o years ago, an incident happening in this country which made me very indignant, and the whole country was very indignant about it. There were certain officers who wanted to take the law into their own hands. They were not obeying the Government. They wanted to participate in politics, and they did so. Someone may say that nothing at all was done about it. I believe that in the long run nothing was done, except that they were put in a position to hand in their resignations. But that was a case of using politics in the Army from another angle. Supposing you had a Labour Government which took a certain course which certain highly placed officers in the Army thought was not their business, and they challenged the position—

Mr. Maxton: I am sure that they would not care whether it was the law or not.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: That is another matter altogether. I hope that the next Labour Government will be stronger than the Government which dealt with that situation. If the proposed Clause became the law such people would be justified legally in taking the course that they took.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I do not think that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) has made the position clearer. He was referring to the Curragh incident and the possibility of something of the same sort happening again, but in justice to the officers concerned I wish to say that, having been given orders that they did not think it right to obey, they resigned their commissions. I say this to reinforce his argument that, if an officer in any of His Majesty's Forces wishes to take part in politics, he has one proper course, and one only, and that is, to resign his commission.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: That is as far as officers are concerned, but there are the men themselves. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) had been asked to resign, his resignation would not have been joyfully accepted?

Mr. J. J. Lawson: All I am trying to do is to point out that this thing is not so simple as it appears on the surface. While our hearts go out to the hon. Gentleman in what he is suggesting, our heads justify us in taking a long-range view upon tits matter. We are not the only country involved in difficulties of this kind. All European countries have been involved in them too, but as I say, it is a long-range business. It is a question of the difficulty of balancing the rights of the citizen and the rights of the soldier, and protecting the citizens from extraordinarily ambitious people, who are not only trained to arms but have access to arms, who might wish to enforce any particular views that they may have or any particular policy for which they may stand at any given moment.
May I give the Committee an instance? In Europe, after the last war, there was a great desire on the part of some of the rather child-like democracies that arose to give full expression to what they called "democratic sentiments," and some of them, through lack of experience, played right into the hands of their opponents, who took advantage of the liberties that were given to soldiers, and used them for their own purposes. In one country, the officers made up their minds that, being at a disadvantage through being in a defeated country, they could not—in fact


they dare not, in many cases—exercise those privileges which were given generally to them in common with the soldiers. They decided to send certain rank-and-file members out from barracks to do propaganda work from a certain angle, and they began propagating a policy in common with their officers. One of them was a corporal and he was very effective at speaking. They discovered how useful he was, and, in consequence, Corporal Hitler became the voice, in the interim period after the last war, of certain very reactionary elements—and we are paying the price for it to-day.
The supporters of the Amendment are asking for something which might become permanent. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will remember that not only have we masses of civilians in the Army, both men and women, but we also have a very well-educated Army. Its conduct has been remarkably fine, and the historian will pay a good deal more attention to the general high standard of conduct of the soldier, than we pay to it to-day. We are too close to it to be in a position to judge the situation, but it is a well-educated section of our civilians which is in the Army. I understand that the Army discusses all kinds of questions. I do not know what would have happened to us in the last war if we had been discussing things such as are being discussed now. I remember a sergeant who said to me that I was "a good soldier but a blamed good nightingale, too."
I myself have given some thought to this matter, and, having advanced views on that to which the great democracies of this country are entitled, I cannot counsel the Government to accept a Clause which would afterwards become a permanent part of the legislation of this country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ride with a loose rein, in order not to be too hard upon the men, and that is generally my experience at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I am sure that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) will forgive me if I do not follow his admirable speech in great detail. I would sooner confine myself to the Clause moved by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid), and sup-

ported by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). They show, I am sure we are all gratified to know, a very real measure of concern in the matter of discipline. This Section of the Army Act and Regulation 541 of King's Regulations are matters, surely, of discipline. The concern of the hon. Members is in regard to the effect of this Measure in precluding men from taking an active part in politics. They ignore, of course, the effect on discipline of taking an active part in politics, and I would like to draw their attention to some of the implications of that situation. What, in fact, does, and would, occur? Were this Clause to form part of the Act a politically active man would be entitled to express his views while on leave, or, indeed, while away from his unit. Although hon. Members claim that it would be possible for such a man to restrict himself to matters that have no bearing on military or Air Force or naval matters, nevertheless, it is to be assumed that, in any circumstances, their arguments would in themselves be of a reasonably controversial nature, Are we then to assume that, having so expressed themselves, and having presumably obtained a certain degree of publicity, they would return to their units, and, with a degree of humility and diffidence which would be exceptional, cast aside all their political views and become normal members of their units? Are we to assume that there would be no degree of publicity attached to them and no question of their proving, in any sense, centres of dissatisfaction, or that they themselves would not tend to view disciplinary action on other matters, quite unconnected with their political activity, as having some political bias? I do not think myself that that principle would be a very good one and I do not think that a great many men would desire to avail themselves of this sort of privilege.
Consider the Clause in another aspect. Let us go a little further up the hierarchy and consider the position of the politically active officer. The hon. Member for Skip-ton, apparently during his service in the Army, found it possible to ignore the King's Regulations in this connection, and I do not think that he has any great cause for satisfaction in having done so. Having accepted the King's commission, one would assume that he would have accepted its implication. Nevertheless, suppose that he had been an officer who was able


to exert influence on the men whom he commanded; is it to be assumed that that influence might not be, in some way, connected with his political views? Let me go a little further. Possibly the hon. Member would occupy a very important position in the Army, but let us consider the situation of a commanding officer. I was fortunate enough, for the first three years of this war, to command a unit in the field, and if I did so at all successfully, I have no doubt that I exerted a degree of influence on the officers and men whom I commanded. Undoubtedly I could have exerted a very considerable influence on my officers, and possibly on the warrant and non-commissioned officers politically. It would have been a highly improper thing for me to have done, indeed I think it would have been very greatly resented by all ranks. I was fortunate enough to command a unit made up almost entirely, anyhow in the first instance, of miners. I have no doubt that their political affiliations were entirely opposed to my own, but just think what would have been the situation if, as an officer who was active politically in the sense to which the hon. Member for Skip-ton has referred, I had in any way given cause to the men and officers serving under me to feel that I was either attempting to influence them, or was allowing my political affiliations to influence my conduct towards them.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: What is there to prevent the hon. and gallant Member from doing the same thing, as things are now?

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I was trying to explain to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) how pernicious it would be were that to be done, and to point out the whole implication of what he and the hon. Member for Skipton seem to have ignored, which is the positive effect it would have on discipline, not possibly in the connection in which they considered it, for I think they were most particularly concerning themselves—as indeed was specified by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone—with the views of those in the ranks. I was pointing out what the effect would be where officers were occupying positions, not only of responsibility, but positions which they could use for their own political desires to the detriment of discipline within the Army. I

mentioned, as an example, my own experience in this matter, not because I hold myself up to be the keenest supporter necessarily of all the regulations in King's Regulations but because I think, like all hon. and gallant Members who have the good fortune to serve in this war, that, as distinct from the hon. Member for Skip-ton, we have recognised very clearly that anything of that nature is against the best interests of discipline. One could pursue this argument in regard to a much higher officer in the Army.
I do not think it needs a great deal of imagination on our part to see the effect which certain very high officers might have on the political views of those serving under them if they were to become actively engaged in politics. They could exert an influence on a far wider scale, but in no less measure, than a commanding officer could on the unit immediately under his command, and whereas, as I say, the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment and the hen. Member who supported it, have considered this matter from a certain aspect, they seem to me to have ignored it almost completely from its positive aspect and, indeed, from the aspect of its effect on those other than the men in the ranks who concern themselves with political activity.

Mr. H. Lawson: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to interrupt I would point out that we were talking mainly from the point of view of the other ranks and the lower-ranking officers. I did say that an officer or soldier must exercise restraint on what he said and did within the general liberty, and obviously a high-ranking general would have to exercise much more restraint than a private soldier.

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: My hon. Friend is mistaken if he imagines that either the Army Act or King's Regulations have a particular implication for other ranks and quite another one for commissioned ranks. All serving in the Armed Forces are subject to the same Acts and the same set of regulations. Although, quite naturally, King's Regulations and those Acts are used in a slightly varying degree under varying circumstances, fundamentally there is no difference. It is not the slightest bit of good approaching the subject and confining one's self to the possible effects of a change in these Regulations on one section


of the Armed Forces, if one wholly ignores its effect on others. Indeed it seems to me that on further reflection the hon. Member for Skipton will realise he is doing something which is neither in the interests of the other ranks nor, indeed, of the Army as a whole.

Mr. petheriek: I may say that I most cordially agree with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Lieut. Colonel Lancaster) and also with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson). If he does not always fulfil the role of a nightingale, at least to-day he has filled that of a rather wise old owl. I think all the arguments he used were the right ones, as opposed to those of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). I now propose, in about half the time which the hon. Member for Skipton took in developing his arguments, to attempt to destroy them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Half?

Mr. Petherick: Well, a quarter. At least it ought to be an easier task in that the hon. Member was at least coherent, unlike his leader or, perhaps I ought to say, his Fuehrer yesterday, who appeared to me to be talking pure, basic, Lewis Carroll. I well understand the considerable play the hon. Member for Skipton made with the fundamental rights of man. It is rather difficult to find out always exactly what are the fundamental rights of man and whether free speech invariably prevails in the jungle. None the less, we know perfectly well what we mean. We mean freedom of speech and liberty which we all wish to maintain. It seems to, me, however, that when a man joins the Forces, whether he joins as a volunteer, or, under the present dispensation, as a conscript, he has either voluntarily, or by force, for the time to surrender certain of the rights which he ordinarily enjoys as a civilian. The reason is a perfectly simple one. The basic reason for maintaining that general system of discipline in the Army, Navy and Air Force is a very old one and has arisen over a period of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street used a perfectly good argument. It is that those constituting His Majesty's Government are the ser-

vants of the King and, of course, through him, of the nation, and the Government are responsible, through the heads of the various Forces, for the Forces under their command. Those Forces have at any moment to carry out the orders of His Majesty's Government for the time being. Therefore, if you should, by unwisely adopting the suggestion put forward today, so politicise the Army that, for instance, the Army all became Common Wealth, or all became Conservative, and the Government of the day happened to have an opposite complexion, what is going to be the situation?
At once you will find that officers and other ranks will be fighting amongst themselves and will refuse to carry out, in the ultimate issue, the orders of His Majesty's Government. It seems to me that our whole system of democracy is therefore grossly endangered. I personally believe, having looked at King's Regulations on this point, that on the whole they are fairly drawn. I sincerely hope that the War Office will not go any further in the direction of whittling them down in any way, although, of course, they should be interpreted with ordinary sense and discretion.
May I take the kind of thing that might easily happen? Suppose this Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) were adopted? Supposing soldiers on leave—and if they are out for the evening they are on leave—should go down to the next village or town and should join in a debate on, for instance, the question of Home Rule for Ireland, and the present position, and they happened to be in an Irish regiment. I believe this actually happened in the past, and that there was a very ugly riot between Protestants and Catholics. That is rather an extreme example of that which might very easily happen. You may widen the scope of these Regulations, and say it does not matter, because any individual soldier ought to be allowed an opportunity in uniform to express his views, and speak, and take the chair, and the rest of it. It is not what one soldier does—that may be a triviality—it is what a number of soldiers do at any given place and at any given time. Further, they go back, perhaps, to their units, as has been pointed out, and the whole feeling of comradeship is apt to be endangered by fierce political strife. There may be


something behind all these suggestions. I have a feeling that there are certain elements in this country trying to politicise the Forces. It applies even further. There are some elements who are trying to politicise the Civil Service, entirely ignoring the basic constitutional practice of the Civil Service and the Forces being responsible to His Majesty's Government. Those people do not think for an instant that if they happened to be in power they would want the Forces and the Civil Service to carry out their orders. Possibly they think they will never be in power. In the case of Common Wealth, I think they are quite right, but after all—

Mr. H. Lawson: Is the hon. Member suggesting that. Common Wealth is one of the bodies to whom he is imputing these wrong motives?

Mr. Petherick: It is very difficult to know what are the motives of Common Wealth.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better leave out the motives of any political party.

Mr. Petherick: Yes, I quite agree. I would not like to discuss an organisation which appears to be a kind of Communism in a bowler hat, a surplice, phylacteries and peroxide hair. I now come back to the point of my discussion. During the whole course of history successive countries and successive Governments have realised the dangers of an army being politicised. Directly after the French Revolution—I am going to skate swiftly over this part of my argument—political commissaries were sent out by the revolutionary' Government in Paris in order to stir up and strengthen revolutionary fervour. They did not last very long after the first few battles, and certainly when Napoleon came in those commissaries were thrown out on their ears. Every great statesman and every great general knows that you cannot risk having a disloyal army. Take one snore modern case, the political commissars in Russia who, for many years, were part of the Russian Army. What happened? Early in this war, after Russia had been attacked by Germany, the political commissars were removed and became part of the Russian Army. That is the reason why no Government, and no country in its senses, can possibly tolerate the risk of any portion of the Armed Forces failing to carry out orders at any given time.
I would like to refer, once again, to the hon. Member for Skipton because he himself has provided an admirable reason why we should not adopt any of the suggestions which are included in the proposed new Clause. It may be that his leader, or Fuehrer, was misquoted in the "Evening News" a few days ago, but I would like to read what the hon. baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) was reported to have said:
When people come to us who want to be Common Wealth candidates we want to know whether they are any good politically, The only way we can know is by seeing whether they have done good political work. Lawson did a great deal of political work on the Rock of Gibraltar in connection with the Army Bureau of Current Affairs. We knew that he and others made use of this to develop an organisation of Left opinion on the Rock, and when, therefore, Skipton became vacant we said, 'Here is the very man we want'"—
and there, opposite, is the very man we have got.

Mr. H. Lawson: Is not the hon. Gentleman's real objection to what I have said the fact that men who have different political opinions from his are getting into this House?

Mr. Petherick: I would much prefer the House to consist largely of those who share my political opinions, but any person is perfectly entitled to try to get into Parliament if he likes. I hope he will not succeed if he is on the other side and that those whom I support will succeed, but that is not the point. The point is that the hon. Member for Skipton, in his position of trust on the Rock of Gibraltar as an officer in His Majesty's Army, used his influence in order, not to help to win the war, as he said just now that he wanted to do, but in order to pro pagate political views of a certain character. I think that is everything that an officer in His Majesty's Army should not do. I am not the least surprised that in the circumstances the hon. Member resigned his commission and came to this House—

Mr. H. Lawson: I came to this House first.

Mr. Petherick: I have no objection to anyone resigning his commission if he is allowed to do so, but what I am trying to show to the Committee is that it is absolutely wrong that officers in the Army, or other ranks, should be allowed


practically to boast of using their military career in order to propagate political views. Oddly enough, we have been discussing the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which used to be the old Army Annual Bill. What was the origin of that Bill? The main reason was to prevent what you might call a political Army in this country. Our forefathers said that the King should have no permanent standing Army, because it was feared that it might be used for political purposes, and every year His Majesty, through his servants, has to come to the House of Commons and ask for a renewal of funds to enable the existing Army to be carried on. If we think that the Army is being used for wrongful purposes we can refuse the money and refuse to pass the Bill. Therefore, in the Bill itself there is content for every argument that is possibly necessary in order to destroy the highly unwise Motion which has now been proposed.

Mr. John Dugdale: I would like to say at the outset that I agree as strongly as anybody on the other side of the Committee with the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) in his description of the activities of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) at Gibraltar. I disapprove as strongly as any Member, but I submit that that is not the question at issue. The question is not what officers or men are doing in uniform within closed doors —which was what happened at Gibraltar —but what they may do, off duty, out of uniform, and out of doors in public, which is quite a different issue altogether. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) has raised this question again to-day. It may be called a hardy annual, but many of the best pieces of legislation to come before this House have started in that way, and I think there, is no harm in it for that.
What are the reasons which have led the Government to turn this down in the past? Many on the opposite side have tried to do the work which the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary have so far failed to do, namely, to give any reasons at all. I have read carefully the speech made by the Finan-

cial Secretary last year and I could not find any reason. What was he afraid of? One of the reasons he gave was that it might interfere with soldiers' work. He said that a soldier who has come to be a soldier should fight and that that is his job. I quite agree, but is the soldier, in his leisure hours, to go on practising his military duty all the time? If he does not go to a political meeting he goes either to a movie, a pub or a football match and if anybody tells me that by going to a movie the soldier will learn more about army and military matters than if he goes to a political meeting I do not believe it. If that is so, I can only suggest that we might get a few prominent film stars, such as Dorothy Lamour, to come along and instruct the Army on the best methods of warfare.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Talking is not her strong point.

Mr. Dugdale: That may be quite right, but she has a considerable influence on the Army as anyone can see if he goes round to soldiers' quarters and into their rooms and sees the pictures which are pinned on the I am still anxious to know what is the reason—and I hope the Secretary of State can give it to us—for the Government's opposition to this matter. I cannot believe it is because they think that any soldier might object to the policy of the National Government, or to what some people have been thinking is a lack of progressiveness in introducing legislation about reconstruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson), for whom I have great admiration, and from whom I am sorry to differ to-day, has been the first person to give any reasons worth considering for opposing this Motion. The first reason he gave was that officers might challenge the Government with force. At least, that is what his argument amounted to, because he gave an example of what happened on the Curragh. But that is totally beside the point. Here was a case where, I understand, officers challenged the Government by force instead of going to a political meeting and asking that this, that and the other should be done. That is quite a different thing. Nobody wants officers or men to challenge the Government by force. That is not the issue and it confuses the matter.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: What they did was to express disagreement with the Govern-


ment's policy and claimed the right, on that ground, to resign and to cease to serve the Government.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): They refused to carry out orders.

Mr. Dugdale: I hasten to say that I think their conduct in refusing to carry out orders was highly reprehensible and deserved the strongest possible condemnation, but nobody suggests that King's Regulations shall allow officers to refuse to carry out orders. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street and made what I thought was a naive observation for a gentleman of his intelligence when he said that all they had to do was to resign their commissions. Does he not know that nowadays, if you resign your commission, what happens to you is that you arc called up in the ranks shortly afterwards, unless your conduct is such that you are not wanted in the Forces at all? In that case you may be sent off to I do not know where—[An HON. MEMBER: "To Parliament."] Yes, indeed, you may be elected to Parliament, but in general an officer asked to resign his commission is later liable to be called up for service in the ranks and, therefore, would be in the same position in this context as he was before he resigned his commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street was also at pains to point out that there were two worlds—one the world of the citizen and the other the world of the Army. That is what we want to avoid. There is a book, to which hon. Members opposite attach great importance, by an erstwhile leader of the Conservative Party, which deals with this subject of two worlds—the world of the rich and the world of the poor. We want to prevent there being two worlds, the world of those in khaki and the world of those who serve in munition factories and elsewhere. We think that it is an exceedingly bad thing that there should be such a division in the rights, responsibilities, duties and ideas as this between these two worlds. The other observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street was about Hitler. To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not become important until after he left the Army.

Sir J. Grigg: That is not so.

Mr. Dugdale: Well, he may have got his foot in when he was in barracks. But I hope there is something greater than King's Regulations which will prevent Hitlers from arising in this country. I hope the temper of our people will be what we shall depend upon rather than King's Regulations. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster) discussed the influence he personally might exercise in the Army. Under present conditions he can exercise that influence; he can—although I am not saying he would —do just what it is alleged the hon. Member for Skipton did, namely, lecture to his unit on current affairs, put and explain his own views and influence his men in that way. King's Regulations have nothing whatever to do with that, and could not stop him or anybody else from exercising that kind of influence if he wished to exercise it. There is to-day an exception made in the case of Members of Parliament. I have yet to learn of any Members of Parliament in the Services who do, in fact, exercise political influence within their units. I hope sincerely that they do not. Yet they are known as active politicians, and when they are not actually with their units they make speeches and explain their views and then go back to their units. The vast majority of such Members are Conservatives at the moment, and far be it from me to say that they are exercising any political influence on their men.
I have dealt with one or two points to which I happened to listen and I would like now to return for a moment to the speech made by the Under-Secretary last year. He said, if I have got it correctly, that it is the duty of soldiers to give complete loyalty to whatever Government is in power irrespective of party politics. Of course it is, but no one supposes that because these gentlemen have certain political views of their own which they air outside that that is going to make them disloyal. Is it to be supposed, to return again to Members of Parliament, that because they give vent to certain opinions when they are outside the Forces they are disloyal and that they are not doing their work in the Army and not serving their country? Of course not. The two things are totally different, and it is quite wrong to mix them up. I understand that the great fear of some


people is that an Army Party may develop. It seems to me that to allow controversy outside the Army is the best possible means of preventing an Army Party developing. if you have meetings inside—what might be called secret meetings—where officers may give their views and put forward certain ideas, there might be a case for saying that an Army Party might be developed. I do not say that it would. But if you get people freely expressing their views outside in public, belonging to different parties, it seems to me that is one of the best bulwarks you can have against an Army Party.
I do not know when this particular King's Regulation was made, but some of the arguments that have been adduced seem to date from about 300 years ago, in the time of Oliver Cromwell. I gather from the last Debate that there was some controversy as to whether a reference to Oliver Cromwell was in order, and so I do not intend to say more about that than that since those days conditions have changed very considerably. Since those days every man over 21 has got the vote. In the days when this rule was made people had not got the vote. The vast majority of soldiers then were just herded like sheep into the Army and were not considered politically. To-day these men are citizens. Each has the vote and each has been called up for certain service for a comparatively short period during the war. I maintain that that introduces an entirely different set of circumstances. Here are these men fighting for democracy, and we are supposed to teach them about democracy. I went yesterday evening to talk to a small group of A.T.S. I hasten to say that I did not introduce any mischief among them.

Captain Cobb: A nice clean party.

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly. I described to them the working of the Parliamentary system, the system by which we are governed. I described incidentally some of the scenes yesterday when 200, or 300 or 400 Members who are not usually here turned up to vote. That is by the way. I described how the system worked, as far as one could describe it in about three-quarters of an hour. Are we going to deprive these people of the very rights which we are explaining to them and for

which they are fighting? I say we have no right to teach them these things in private and then by Regulations made in past days take those things away from them in practice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am surprised at what toe hon. Member has just said. It does not seem to me that he can have paid full attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson), who, I thought, completely answered the point raised about the object of the Regulation when he observed that if some units indulge in political controversy when off duty it may cause friction which may impair efficiency. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in detail. A great deal of what he said was in my opinion entirely irrelevant. It seems to me that the present regulation is fairly flexible and gives all the latitude desired. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) seemed to suggest that there was great feeling in the Army with regard to this regulation and he referred in particular to the Intelligence Corps. I do not know what contacts he had with that Corps during his sojourn upon the Rock of Gibraltar, but during my service I had contact with members of the Corps and I found no evidence that any feeling of the sort he referred to had arisen.

Mr. H. Lawson: If the hon. Member wants to know the feeling he cannot judge through the Intelligence Corps.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not accept that. The hon. Member said that that feeling was bad for discipline. His argument seemed to be that if you found a number of people with feelings in one particular direction the regulation ought to be altered, and his argument was that that was true democracy. I do not think that is the same thing as Common Wealth, but however that may be I would like to come to the point which he urged in favour of the alteration of the regulation. He said—I think I am summarising correctly what he said—that if this regulation was altered it would enable the country to find Parliamentary candidates of high political integrity. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Skipton has himself indicated the fallacy of supposing that allowing politics in the Army is necessarily a proof of high political integrity. I would like to add one word


with regard to his final argument that this regulation was not binding on people although it is a regulation which has been in existence for some time. I think the case for keeping the regulation in its present form has been conclusively established, and I hope that in no circumstances while the war is on, while members of all political parties are fighting side by side, will anything be done to alter the regulation and thus lead to the development of political friction between them.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I join with my hon. Friends on this side and others in hoping that this regulation will not be altered either now or after the war. The best possible thing that we could do for Great Britain is to keep politics, as much as we can, out of the Armed Forces. We can look at other countries and see what has happened, for example, in Germany, Russia, France and Spain. What we want is intelligent discipline. Judging from my own experience, this order has been intelligently observed. Surely it is most important that the serving soldier, whatever his rank, should not actively press the interests of any political party. I did not find, when I was in the Army, that there were many complaints about this, and I do not know one officer who broke the rule. I think everyone reasonably obeyed it. But you can have a wide interpretation, and I think the Government have been very liberal, as they ought to be, in its interpretation. A certain amount of intelligence also must be observed by the individual, whether he is an officer or a private soldier. If the Government is to interpret the rule intelligently and wisely, a certain amount of responsibility devolves on the soldier as well and he must realise that the Government is interpreting the rule widely and he must obey it as so interpreted, and therefore must conduct himself at a public meeting in such a way as not to give the impression that he is actively connected with any political party.
It is all very well to say that a man on leave, perhaps in mufti, must be given still more latitude and can do anything he wishes, but he might get into some little disturbance and his name might get into the newspapers in connection with it. I do not think you should have anyone, whether in mufti or not, at a meeting

making political capital out of his status as a soldier, and therefore, you cannot have as wide an interpretation of the rule as the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) suggested. In fighting against nations like Germany and Japan, it has to be remembered that war is not only their business. It is their sport and their pastime as well. It is what they have been brought up on for generations and we have to fight them properly and bring this thing to an end as soon as possible. There is plenty of time for all of us to engage in whatever political controversies we like after the war. Do not let us make it more difficult for the people in the Army now. Every regiment has its barrack-room lawyer, as he is known in the Army. He is an older man and he knows the rules. He does not get into trouble himself but he gets the young men of 19, 20 or 21 into trouble.

Mr. McGovern: He is a politician.

Mr. Bull: He is everything. He is like the hon. Member. He has been in for a long time and he leads others astray. Conscription, to my mind, is the payment of-a service to the community which cannot be paid entirely in taxes and so on. It is a service to defend one's home and to maintain the war effort. In Cromwell's day our armies were more feared abroad than they have ever been since. He found the extreme value of discipline. We must have discipline. If people are so interested in politics as the hon. Member for Skipton suggested, I wonder why a few more votes could not have been raked together at Camberwell. [Interruption.]

The Deputy-Chairman: We have already had a long speech and interruptions from the hon. Member for Skipton. I hope the hon. Member who is now addressing the Committee will not stir him up.

Mr. Bull: I do not mind provoking him but I was not prepared to give way.

Mr. Maxton: I have enjoyed very much listening to the Debate and seeing how conceptions of discipline have advanced during the ages. I notice that three hon. and gallant Gentlemen have said that the case for absolutely no change has been fully substantiated. I have always been interested in this question of discipline. I have been a


teacher, and I know better than most people from practical experience how far you can go and how far you cannot. I have watched this matter of discipline in the House of Commons with tremendous interest. I have watched how the absence of many supporters of the Government got the Government into a mess; how they all rolled up and got the Government out of the mess and then all rolled away again.

Captain Cobb: The hon. Member admitted himself that he had been broken on the wheel by his long time in Parliament.

Mr. Maxton: I did not say anything of the sort. I quoted the sergeant-major who said, "You broke your mother's heart but you will not break mine." It has perhaps smoothed off some of the rough edges but not broken me. I have been tremendously interested in the question of discipline in the Armed Forces. One of my entertainments for months past has been on Monday mornings to pick up my paper, the "Telegraph," which I buy since the "Daily Herald" went to the House of Lords—[Interruption.] I find the "Telegraph" is more accurate in its reports—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have read this new Clause very carefully, and I cannot find that it in any way justifies us in discussing the accuracy of any of the British Press.

Mr. Maxton: I hope that, at any rate, my authority for the statement I have made will not be denied. There is 'a column in that paper which says: "Weekend speeches," and one of the persons who is reported regularly every week-end, and who is one of the most controversial and provocative politicians, is described as "Captain H. H. Balfour, M.C., Under-Secretary of State for Air." The hon. and gallant Member knows the great interest I have in his welfare. He used to be my next door neighbour on this bench, and he knows the number of wires I had to pull to get him shifted. Talk about discipline—here is a head of a Service who is one of the most controversial politicians in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Morrison?"] The right hon. Gentleman does not decorate himself up with military titles, M.Cs. and all the rest of it, his blustering honours

thick upon him. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's military rank and his decorations are never omitted from newspaper reports. Having regard to that and to speeches which are made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, a captain—

Mr. Bull: I was a captain, but like everyone else was reduced again to lieutenant.

Mr. Maxton: There are others, all using Navy or Army ranks.

Mr. Astor: I did not use an Army rank.

Mr. Maxton: I was not pointing to the hon. Gentleman. I was pointing to somebody else. But I remember the hon. Gentleman coming back from Egypt and speaking on behalf of the whole of the Army in North Africa. When I remember that, and see all the political activities of these hon. and gallant Gentlemen, who condemn political activity in the Army because of its effect on discipline, I think perhaps that their practice is a little bit more intelligent than their theory. I would allow absolute freedom to talk about anything anywhere. I became particularly interested in this matter when a young lad of about 20, a member of my party—

Sir T. Moore: Which member?

Mr. Maxton: I was not going to refer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) conducting propaganda meetings in his Division in Home Guard uniform. If he is going to be funny at my expense, I warn him I have his dossier. There is no Member of this House who has made more use of the King's uniform, the ribbons and the decorations for political purposes than the hon. and gallant Gentleman who interrupted me so rudely.

Sir T. Moore: Never rudely.

Mr. Maxton: I hope I have not lost my sense of humour. It is true that my party is a very small party—

Sir T. Moore: But of good quality.

Mr. Maxton: —and that this young man was one of my very few members. He was a private in the Army. He got ten days' leave and he went to his home town, Edinburgh. He had been an active


member of the and his friends, his social life and his interests were there. He went to an open air meeting on the Sunday, and the chairman called on him to speak for five minutes. He was in mufti and he did so. An Army officer in uniform interrupted him, and things got hot as they always do in these circumstances. I have no doubt that he tried to get his own back, for it was a chance to speak as man to man to an officer in uniform, and he let him have it. There was a bit of fracas, with the officer in unifonn as the provocateur. The young man was taken back to his regiment and branded as a defaulter—the first black mark on his Army record. He was kept hanging round the camp in detention for six weeks before he was tried. Then he was tried by court-martial and was sentenced to 28 clays.

Sir J. Grigg: Detention.

Mr. Maxton: It does not matter what was the sentence. He got his ticket dirtied because he, being a soldier while on leave and out of uniform, engaged in political activity. I have always been interested in discipline. One thing I know about discipline is that if you are to make either a party, or a class in school, or a regiment of soldiers a disciplined body, you must first impress them with the idea that whoever is in authority over them treats everybody with exactly the same fair-mindedness and absolute fair-play. I have a strong feeling that there is not fair-play in these matters. Knowing the interest in politics of the hon. and gallant Members who have spoken to-day, and knowing their capacity in politics, I honestly do not believe that they do not take politics into their messes. I do not believe that they are not referred to on political matters, not merely by their fellow officers but by their non-coms.

Mr. Bull: I wonder how the hon. Gentleman thinks he would get on if he went to an officers' mess and talked politics all the time. He would not last a minute. He would not get beyond the soup.

Mr. Maxton: I have only been twice in an officers' mess in my life. Once was in the Staff College at Greenwich and the other was on the flagship of the Admiral in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Member came and had tea with me once.

Mr. Maxton: And I talked politics all the time.

Major Peto: None of us could get a word in edgeways.

Mr. Maxton: I must have the same characteristics as the hon. and gallant Member.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt these very interesting bits of history, but they seem to have very little relevance at all to the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Maxton: They are just as close to the Clause as many of the speeches we have heard to-day.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. The other remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) were absolutely in Order on the Clause, and I, therefore, did not interrupt him. But if he is now to give us the history of his visits to officers' messes he will be going a little bit wide.

Mr. Maxton: Let me try to retrace my steps to the point at which I was interrupted. I said that I did not believe that there were not discussions about politics in officers' messes, when the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bartle Bull) interrupted me and said that if I was in the mess and. started to talk politics, I would not get past the soup. I said that on one of the few occasions when I had been in an officers' mess—

Mr. Bull: Was it at Gibraltar?

Mr. Maxton: It was in just as awkward a place. It was in Valencia, at the time of the Spanish civil war.

Commander King-Hall: Is it not a fact that I arranged for the hon. Member to visit the Staff College at Greenwich for the express purpose of talking politics?

Mr. Maxton: Yes, and I remember how hon. Members said to me: "How do you get into such place," because they thought that going into an officers' mess was like going into a freemasons' lodge—no one outside ever penetrated within the sacred portals. I am not going wide, but, with all respect to your Ruling on


this matter, Mr. Williams, I must say that I do not respect the Ruling that the whole of this important discussion on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill should be confined to one new Clause only. It is clear that you are not going to call either of the two Clauses standing in my name.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that matter now.

Mr. Maxton: I do not want to quarrel with you, Mr. Williams. I suppose I could not do so without incurring the penalty. The power that is put in the hands of the Chair to select Amendments is one that earnest Members of this House want to be exercised with discretion. In the old days, before I was broken on the wheel—as the hon. Member suggested—I used to have a considerable nuisance value in this House. It might be possible to develop that again, if the circumstances necessitated it.
I do not believe that it is possible to make out a case that Army discipline on this political matter can be kept now as it has been in the past. Look how it has developed. Why, in the old days, it was a kick, an oath and a blow; that was regarded as the way to discipline, for a soldier or a sailor. Into a cell, kick him, swear at him. Surely that idea has gone; but in the old days it was believed that, if you were to let up on that, if you did not treat men brutally, you would not get the kind of soldier that you wanted.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he is mistaken about that matter. I have been in the Army for a long time, but never in my life have conditions been anything like that, in any sort of way, and never anything approaching it, in a good unit.

Mr. Maxton: There is one thing I like about Army officers; they are very true to their sort.

Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Mary-hill): Is there not a great difference, according to whether you are serving as a private or as an officer?

An Hon. Member: Or as a general.

Mr. Maxton: There is no good in getting into controversy about it. I was not talking about the hon. and gallant Gentleman's time. I was talking about the

matter historically, and I do not regard him as an historical character. I regard him as my contemporary. He went too far when he tried to claim that in his time it was not believed that discipline could be maintained only by the harshest and most brutal methods.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I do not admit it for a moment. I may not be historic, but my experience of the Army does go back, I am sorry to say, for approaching so years and I say that kicks and blows certainly did not exist in my time.

Mr. Maxton: I could not be so cocksure as to talk like the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I say here that the man who has been in the Army or the Navy during the last 50 years and has not known of acts of the greatest cruelty in the name of discipline, was gifted not with one Nelsonian blind eye, but with two, and a couple of deaf ears in addition.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again. I certainly have known, exceptionally, of such cases, and I have known the perpetrators to be tried by courts-martial and very severely punished.

Mr. Maxton: It became a matter for discussion on the Floor of this House and for public inquiry, during the course of this war, and not 50 years ago. We had an outstanding case here. Surely we are all sufficiently well aware of the affairs of mankind to know that one case that gets public attention and notice does not live alone. I hope and believe that, over the years, we have gradually got away from that conception of discipline, and have now got to the general idea that to get a man properly disciplined, you have to have him with you in body, mind and understanding. You have to make him an intelligent human being in every aspect of the human mind. Should we be worried about a fight in the barrack room? Do politics need to be discussed on that level? Is a fight in a barrack room more destructive of discipline than a fight about a woman?

Mr. Bull: Are we discussing the barrack room or politics outside?

Mr. Maxton: We are discussing both, because if one of my fellows makes a speech 200 miles away, it is said it will be bad for discipline in the barracks. I am arguing that you must have, in the


barrack-room and outside the barrack-room, an intelligent human being, understanding his nation and how it works, understanding what all this trouble is about, and with ideas of what sort of country he wants after the war. I say that the limited extension of political rights defined here can be given without disturbing the discipline of the Army and that indeed it will tend towards the improvement of discipline in the Army. In my time, I have seen only two cases of widespread indiscipline in the Services. One was referred to, I think, by the Prime Minister in his Sunday night broadcast—that was when there was nearly a mutiny at the end of the last war on the question of demobilisation. I forget what the right hon. Gentleman's phrase was, but it was a very good one. That was Army politics bursting out. Decisions had been made without the views of the men in the Service having been adequately assessed. The other case in my time was the Invergordon business in connection with the Navy. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Curragh."] I put that in a different category. If you get that situation in your Army and Navy and Air Force; if you have reached an explosive revolutionary situation, and are going to have a revolution in your country—and that was near revolution—it is not King's Regulation 541 that will stop it, you can be sure of that. Those two cases, the demobilisation after the last war and the Invergordon affair, which was, in the main, an expression of grievance about the cut in wages, arose simply because there was an idea that these men could be dealt with in the mass in any way that was thought fit because they were a disciplined force. I am arguing here that the time has been reached when Army discipline can be based on the assumption that the average man in the Army, the Air Force or the Navy, is nearly as intelligent as the rest of us, and that the ranker is just as intelligent as a captain or a major. I am making no higher claim than that there is a general standard of intelligence that enables people to be soldiers and to be intelligent soldiers at the same time.
I want now to ask for your attention, Major Milner, for one moment, because the question of your authority is involved. I wish to refer to the two new Clauses which I put on the Paper and which are

not being called. They make somewhat lesser demands than the Clause now before the Committee. The Chair has seen fit not to call those for reasons which I have said I do not understand, but which I suspect and do not like. I wish to refer to these two lesser Clauses. I do not know what are the intentions of the Secretary of State with reference to the first Clause. If he refuses to accept it, I assume that the hon. Gentlemen associated with me propose to go into the Division Lobby and support the Clause. I propose to follow them. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to consider whether the first Clause standing in my name is not a reasonable demand to make and does not raise the general issues of what the long-term methods in the Army are to be? It simply says that, should there be a General Election while we have this great standing Army, and while a big proportion of our male adult citizens are still in uniform, then this rule limiting the political rights of the soldier, should be suspended for the duration of that General Election. I think that is a most reasonable thing that even the most extreme anti-politics-in-the-Army man would concede.

Mr. Hopkinson: Has the hon. Member forgotten that in the case of the last war that situation actually arose? In my case, I was serving in the Regular Army as a private soldier. I actually conducted the election campaign of 1918 in uniform.

Mr. Maxton: According to King's Regulations the hon. Member ought to have been put in clink on that account at that time, and for other things since. But there, again, this is just the very thing I am arguing about—this idea of allowing some people in the Army complete political liberty. [Interruption.] I am reminded that the other week at a Brains Trust meeting for American soldiers in the Washington Club, a major took part in the proceedings. I say, make up your mind what the rule is to be, but when it is made see that it is applied equitably to the serving soldier.

Earl Winterton: The same would apply to some distinguished generals who seem to be making speeches of a political nature.

Mr. Maxton: I am arguing now merely in support of this second and more limited Clause, and the third Clause on the Paper, that should it be felt necessary still to take action against members of the Forces for political activities no such action shall be taken by subordinate officers, but the Secretary of State himself shall be expected to authorise any prosecution that is of a political nature. If a court-martial can be held on the initiative of the sergeant-major, or perhaps of the lance-corporal, that is putting a tremendous power into the hands of very subordinate officers. I do not know at what level in Army ranks a decision to prosecute in this way is taken.

Captain Prescott: If it were alleged that a private soldier had committed an offence of a political nature, it would be reported to his commanding officer, and then referred to the judge-Advocate-General's Department. Only after reference to that Department could the soldier be tried by court-martial.

Mr. Maxton: I have had some dealings with this body, and I know that in the Judge-Advocate-General's Department there are a lot of levels. I ask that when there seems to be a necessity for a court-martial for political reasons, the Secretary of State's authority should be necessary for such a prosecution. That would have two very great advantages. It would deter soldiers from sending up proposals for political prosecutions, and it would secure that the final decision is made by a man who has some political wisdom. [Interruption.] I may be going too far in saying that, but I like to be generous. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to meet us to some extent on this Clause. I hope that the Committee will examine this whole matter seriously, and not come to the conclusion that the disciplinary rules which were good in the time of Wellington and Nelson are adequate to meet the exigencies of the present time.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I am often reminded of the fact—and the last occasion was just about two and a half seconds ago—that I am a very unprofessional politician, and that I bear upon me still some of the marks of the civil servant—although, perhaps, "civil" is hardly the right word. I was also a soldier for three years in the last war, and, like my hon. Friend

the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. Lawson), I got my character from my commanding officer. He did not say that I was a good soldier, and he certainly did not call me a nightingale. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street has trilled, or whatever it is that nightingales do, to such good effect that I wish he had done it a bit longer, and then there would have been no need for me to make a speech at all, because he put so very clearly what I think is the case against the Clause. Perhaps this hideous past of mine explains my attitude towards political activities on the part of State servants, whether they are civil servants or members of the Armed Forces.
I take the view, as a matter of fundamental principle, that a servant of the Crown owes complete loyalty to the Government of the day. It is his duty to execute the policy of the Government of the day, whatever the political complexion of that Government may be. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street, who made a great feature of preserving that, was right in holding that the loyalty of the servant of the Crown to the Government, whatever Government it is, is of prime importance. Moreover, the impartiality of the State servant in exercising that policy must be not only real, but recognised, and respected by the public and by his own unit. That is the point which the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. John Dugdale) missed. It is not enough to be impartial; you have to be admitted and seen to be impartial. In the case of an officer or man in the Army there are other reasons. Pronounced political activity, whether in uniform or not, whether on leave or not, is certain to become a focus of controversy within the unit, and to lead very soon to ill-feeling and to the risk of calling into question the propriety or the expediency of the orders of higher authority. This was the point made by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), and I agree with him. From calling orders into question to actual indiscipline is a very short step; and, whatever hon. Members may think about it, the fighting efficiency of a unit depends more on discipline than on any other single factor.
I have been told that this question is a hoary annual. How hoary it was I did not know until there was put in my hand a


quotation on the matter nom Sir Robert Peel, which seems to go to the core of the question. He denied the truth of the doctrine that a soldier continued to enjoy all the rights of a citizen, and said that it was clear that he must forfeit that portion of his civil right which would interfere with the discipline of the Army. That is the key of the thing.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton): That begs the whole question.

Sir J. Grigg: No, it states the whole question.

Mr. Bowles: What is the date of that?

Sir J. Grigg: Peel was about 100 years ago. And it is still true. There is a further objection to the politically-active officer in that he would be open to the accusation of trying to influence the men under his command in particular political directions, a possibility to which attention was called by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster). A good many Members have said that that is all right and proper in the case of permanent civil servants and regular members of the Forces, but that the vast majority of those in the Armed Forces were citizens before they became soldiers, sailors, or airmen, and, as I understand the argument, they must be allowed to bring into the Army, the Navy or the Air Force as much as possible of the freedom of political activity which they enjoyed or exercised, in private life. I do not believe that it is possible to discriminate between a highly-successful commander, with a great popular appeal, and the newly-conscripted private; and between those two extremes there is every possible gradation.
Another point which was made was that if you cannot discriminate—and the Regulation does not attempt to discriminate—between the regular soldier and the citizen soldier, they ought both to be allowed to take part in politics in wartime, but not in peace-time. You get into a complete mess in trying to distinguish between the citizen soldier and the regular soldier, and no attempt is made to discriminate between them in any of the Clauses on the Paper. Another point to which I would like to call the attention of the Committee—and it is necessary to keep it in mind—is that, abroad, most of the revolts against

established democratic government have come from juntas of highly-placed regular officers. One hon. Member suggested that it was not in Order to mention Cromwell in this kind of Debate, but I would like to remind hon. Members that the only time when we did have a political army was in Cromwell's time, when the emblem of the sovereignty of Parliament was removed at Cromwell's order, by that political army.
I do not think it possible to discriminate between the war-time soldier and the regular soldier in this matter of disciplinary regulations. All that the Government or the Army Council can do is to take special care to see that the regulations in wartime are applied with tact and discretion and good sense. I do not mean by this that there should be a general and universal policy of the blind eye. What I do mean is that the slighter infringements of the regulations could be commonly met by warning, without recourse to formal penalty, which should be done only in cases of serious or repeated breaches. It is easier to do this, in that the regulation is for the most part in general terms. King's Regulation 541 (a) reads:
No officer or soldier, or member of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing service, is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party, either by acting as a member of the candidate's selection committee, or by speaking in public, or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the political purposes of any such organisation or party, or in any other manner, until he or she has retired, resigned or been discharged.
I would like to say, in passing, that that regulation does not, as one hon. Member seems to think, prohibit a soldier from attending a political meeting for his own amusement or otherwise, but merely from taking an active part in that meeting.

Mr. Hopkinson: I hope the Committee will take notice of this—that it does not deprive an hon. Member like myself from taking part in political activities, inasmuch as no organisation is involved.

Sir J. Grigg: I do not want to go into the question of what constitutes a party. As a matter of fact, attempts have been made from time to time to frame the regulation in more precise form, and to lay down more clearly, what is allowed and what is prohibited. But the conclusion invariably reached as a result of


these attempts, which have been repeated and prolonged, has been that we should lose a great deal more than we should gain. What is the case on which the demand for alteration rests? Only two cases have attracted an appreciable degree of public attention since the beginning of the war. The first was one in which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was interested, and with which he dealt at some length. It was a case of a man on leave and in mufti, addressing an open-air meeting in Edinburgh. He made great capital of the fact that he was a soldier. There was no question of concealing that fact. He proclaimed it in his very first sentence, and went on proclaiming it. Some of his views were not at all calculated to further the war effort, as might be expected, if I may say so, from a member of my hon. Friend's party. He trailed his coat pretty badly.

Mr. Maxton: Pretty thoroughly.

Sir J. Grigg: Pretty thoroughly. He was court-martialled and got 28 days' detention—not imprisonment, but detention, a very mild form of punishment—which does not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton suggested, involve making his ticket dirty. It is not recorded permanently on his documents, like imprisonment. It does not involve cellular confinement, and deprivation of military training. It is a pretty mild form of punishment, and, on the whole, I should not have thought it a very excessive judgment for the field day that this young man allowed himself. The other case is that of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). He was good enough to explain the other day and again today—

Mr. Maxton: The point that has always got me is that, as far as I know, nothing was ever heard of the officer concerned in the fracas. There was no caution—he went on just the same as if he were a National Liberal.

Sir J. Grigg: It is quite true that I do not know particularly about this incident of the officer, but I will certainly look into the matter to see if there was anything of the order of deliberate provocation. I should be extremely doubtful of that, because if the officer were very objectionable there is another explanation. Some

of the young man's remarks were extremely provocative and extremely derogatory of the war effort.

Mr. Maxton: This is the story. The young fellow said something that the officer resented—

Sir J. Grigg: As a slur on the Army.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, on himself and all the rest of them. The officer responded in kind, and said what he thought of the young man, and there was a regular row. The young man was punished and the "officer and gentleman" walked away.

Sir J. Grigg: The young man cast slurs on the Army, which the officer, naturally, resented. The young man had from the first proclaimed that he was a member of a political party, that he spoke as such and that he also spoke as a soldier. That part of the incident is not very clearly in my recollection. I will look it up and see whether the hon. Member's rather suspicious explanation of that incident, or what I think is the more natural one, is right. If I find any reason to alter the view I have expressed, I will do so publicly, but I do not think it is very likely.
The other case is that of the hon. Member for Skipton. He explained the other day, and again to-day, that he had consistently broken King's Regulations for a number of years, and had recommended, as I understood him, his friends in the Armed Forces to break them, too. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) read a testimonial to him from his political leader which appeared in the "Evening News" of 10th March, so I need not read that again. I cannot imagine a more telling case for the justification of the regulation. What I do not understand is why, if the breaches were so frequent, he escaped disciplinary action.

Mr. Hopkinson: Why was it?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps they were not too frequent, after all, and did not occur more than once in the same unit. I have heard about the Gibraltar incidents, and I am told they concluded by the hon. Member being told, informally, that, if he did not stop his political activities, he would be dealt with more formally. I cannot believe that, after that warning, as no action took place in Gibraltar, they did not stop.
If he really did as much as his leader says and continued to do so, he seems to


me to have been pretty lucky. Anyhow, let me make it clear, both to this Committee and to the Army, that I hope that the incitement of the hon. Member to disobedience will not be followed.

Earl Winterton: I presume we can have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the hon. Member is only entitled as far as this House is concerned, but that if he appears in uniform and breaks the regulation he will be treated like anyone else. This hon. Gentleman has practically said that he is going to defy the Army Act, and it would be an intolerable thing if any Member of this House were to defy the Army Act.

Mr. Maxton: It would be an intolerable thing if this House suggested the prosecution of its Members outside for speeches made in the House. It would be intolerable if Members of this House started to agitate for the arrest of their colleagues for political activities.

Earl Winterton: I have said it dozens of times in the case of the Irish Nationalists, and I shall certainly be for the arrest of a Member who outside this House continued to pursue such political activities.

Sir J. Grigg: I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite, but I would also like to make clear that if, by any grave misfortune, the example of the hon. Member were followed, the incitement will not be regarded as a valid defence. The hon. Member for Skipton went further and made an explanation of his remarks on the Adjournment Motion, which seemed to make the matter much worse. As I understood his position it was that there are certain fundamental rights of man. If the House of Commons does not embody those fundamental rights in the law or regulations he will seek to persuade the House that it should embody them in the regulations, but if he fails, he will incite all the persons concerned to disobey the law and the decision of the majority of the House of Commons. I would have thought that the finality of the decision of the House of Commons was one of the fundamental rights of man in this country.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: It was, the day before yesterday.

Sir J. Grigg: There was a reconsideration in that case. Let me use another argument, and a rather different argu-

ment, against a material relaxation of the regulation in war-time.

Mr. Bowles: General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson indulged in political broadcasts to various States, such as Greece and Yugoslavia. Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of that? Are they done on the instructions and with the authority of the Government, or do they break the King's Regulations?

Sir J. Grigg: General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson is under the authority of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, who themselves derive their authority from the joint Governments, and I am quite clear that any broadcasts which General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson makes to occupied countries in Europe, are made under authority and not as a matter of political activity.

Mr. Bowles: But the soldiers under him are not allowed to criticise or make any comment at all.

Sir J. Grigg: It is not in the least contradictory of Article 541. Officers or men under General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson are not entitled to criticise anything he does by orders of a higher authority than himself, and that is the whole basis of the position. I would like to make a rather different argument against a material relaxation of the regulation in war-time. In the light of coming events, it seems to be clear that any increased political activities can, in fact, only be enjoyed by those serving at home or at bases of operational theatres abroad, and there would thus be discrimination against the men in the thick of the fighting. I do not think that would be right. This matter does not only concern the Army. The Bill before the Committee covers the Air Force as well, and the rules for the Navy are very much the same, if not exactly the same, as those of the other two Services. Naturally, I thought fit to consult my Service colleagues and the Cabinet, and I have to tell the Committee that their view is that the present rules should not be relaxed in any material particular. There can be no question of conceding a general permission to take part in political demonstrations or in political agitation. Soldiers may, of course, attend meetings, but they must not take an active part in them or appear on the platform.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Can they ask questions?

Sir J. Grigg: That is a matter which depends on the nature of the question, and I am not going to attempt to do what I have said has hitherto, on different occasions, been tried ineffectively, and that is, to define in detail what the regulations mean. One aspect was touched on by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, who seemed to think that the fact that Members of Parliament and candidates for Parliament enjoyed special privileges in this matter was a matter to be condemned. My recollection is that that is not the general consensus of feeling in this House, and, in accordance with what the Government have always understood to be the general feeling, I would like to make it clear that every reasonable facility will be given to serving officers and men to be adopted as prospective candidates and candidates for constituencies either at by-elections or General Elections. They can do so now, and I am not aware of any case in which a serving officer or man has been refused leave to take the necessary steps to that end. In the matter of getting all the necessary formalities carried out, everything will be done to cut out red-tape. The Committee will remember that in one case the normal procedure, combined with a chapter of accidents, led to the permission arriving too late, but since then the procedure for getting permission has been expedited.
Again, in conformity with the general feeling, of this House, once an individual has been adopted as a prospective candidate or candidate, he is free to undertake political activity in his constituency, provided he does not wear uniform. An election means that he is set free from his military duties for the whole period of the election. If elected, he can choose whether or not he will return to his military duty. If he is not elected he rejoins his Service forthwith. The peacetime regulation which requires a regular officer to resign his commission on his adoption as a candidate is a little harsh now, in comparison with the permission given to temporary officers, and I think there is a good case for suspending that for the Period of the war. Another restriction which hon. Members have found irksome, and which the hon. Member for Skipton found applied in his case—though it has not always been honoured quite so strictly

—is that serving Members of the House have hitherto only been entitled to speak in their own constituency. I think that that restriction, which is not a reasonable one, might very well be withdrawn. Subject to this, there can be, in the view of the Government, no general relaxation of the rules.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked me about his two specific suggestions. One was that, as soon as a General Election should come in war time, there should be freedom for all. I do not think that the fact that a General Election arises in war time makes any material difference to the basis on which the regulations are framed, and I certainly could not make any promise of that sort. What I can do is to ensure, as I said just now, that the officers and soldiers get every possible opportunity of having themselves adopted as candidates and, when they are accepted as candidates, of course they are freed from some of the restrictions which apply to the rest. The hon. Member for Bridgeton seemed to think that was not a good thing and that it was unfair to pick out anybody, even a prospective candidate.

Mr. Maxton: I did not mean to suggest that. I am strongly of the opinion that Service Members of Parliament should have the fullest opportunity. I was merely using the case of my hon. Friend to say that if this was obstructive of discipline, there was no point in it. Does the Secretary of State for War contemplate that there would be no relaxation of the rules for the ordinary soldier should a General Election take place? Presumably I could send my election address to members of the Forces. Would it not be permissible for them to discuss that during the period of a General Election?

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I was going to ask my right hon. Friend practically the same question. Will he state plainly what will be the position of the rank and file soldier in case of an election, particularly as far as a man in this country is concerned?

Sir J. Grigg: There is no earthly reason why he should not receive election addresses and discuss them in the barrack room, or where he likes. What he is not allowed to do, unless he is a prospective candidate, is to take an active part in public meetings at which the various merits of those election addresses are discussed.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: If he takes that active part, may he be in King's uniform or must he be in mufti?

Sir J. Grigg: When a prospective candidate addresses meetings in his own constituency he must be in mufti.

Mr. Granville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this matter was raised on the Adjournment a few weeks ago my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary gave a general undertaking that, in the event of an election, soldiers who were going to give their vote at a General Election on a domestic issue would find some relaxation of this rule before they voted?

Sir J. Grigg: I happen to have read that, and I think my hon. Friend has not the correct interpretation of the particular passage. My colleague gave an assurance that instructions would be issued if at any time a General Election were in sight. Perhaps I had better give the exact words:
Consistent with the reasonable requirements of discipline and with the interests of the Service, the fullest opportunities will be given to all Service personnel to exercise their rights as citizens for election purposes." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1944; col. 2352, Vol. 397.]
What he had in mind was their freedom to be adopted as candidates, and also that the Government would have to make provision for the soldier to be allowed to exercise his franchise in some way or other. That pledge stands. Perhaps I may deal with the other point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton raised. That was that he wished to impose on the Secretary of State personally the obligation of prior sanction to any political prosecution, as he called it. It means a prosecution for an infringement of Regulation 541A. I do not think that that really is a practical suggestion, though it obviously has some attractions on the face of it. I think it founders completely on the delay which would be caused in the case of disciplinary action in a theatre of war, particularly in a far distant theatre of war. In the initiation of a prosecution for a serious case of infringement, which might be the prelude to an attempt at mutiny or desertion, if the commanding officer or the commanding general were denied the possibility of taking disciplinary action until he had

obtained the consent of the Secretary of State, who might be 6,000 miles away, I think that would more than indicate a complete obstruction of the regulations.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Supposing the commanding officer took instant action, which I quite agree he might have to take, would there not be a possibility of an appeal afterwards to the right hon. Gentleman when the emergency had passed?

Sir J. Grigg: There is a certain hierarchy laid down for machinery of appeal in all criminal cases. I do not think they all cover the Army Council, but any officer, at any rate, has the right of appeal to the Army Council, and a soldier has certain rights of appeal which I cannot give in detail offhand. Appeal from the sentence of a court-martial is, of course, included in that. But the Debate has ranged over rather a wide field and I am afraid I have ranged over rather a wide field too. The upshot of it is that I think I can say that we cannot possibly accept any of these proposed new Clauses, or make any material relaxation in the regulations. We hope we are doing, and we intend to try to do, exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street asks us to do, that is to interpret them and administer them in a spirit of good sense and discretion.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I am sorry to have to intervene at this hour, and it is very hard to follow the Minister after he has given an impression to the Committee that he is winding up the Debate. I would point out, however, that two other speakers got up, and it might well have been in the interests of good fellowship and good feeling in this Committee if they had been permitted to get their contributions off their chests before the final reply. There is one important aspect of this matter which I think should be borne in mind, and it particularly refers to the war situation. Incidentally, I would like to say that it is difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—I hope I may still call him my hon. Friend—because he invests every argument he uses with such wit, humour, sincerity and devotion that one is almost forced to agree with him before one's better judgment intervenes. The point I wanted to make was one that my right hon. Friend has


already made, although he has not put it exactly in my words. I think the proposed new Clause is a most mischievous one, and I think, incidentally, that it has not been very well or very convincingly argued. In fact, listening to those who were speaking in its favour—excepting my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton who, of course, can twist any case into a good one for the time being, until one gets home and thinks it over—there was very little conviction about the speeches.
I want to analyse for one second this question of political controversy. I challenged the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) as to what he meant by political controversy, and he said it was anything in the way of political controversy—not very enlightening—which does not deal with criticism of the Armed Forces. Let us get down to a possible case. Let us take one of the many by-elections which we have had recently, which may be taking place in any district throughout Great Britain. There are soldiers and airmen quartered in that district. They are in uniform, they are off duty. According to the Clause, as now moved, any of these soldiers or airmen might participate in that by-election.
In other words, one of these gallant young men who have already been engaged in hostilities, possibly, a soldier of the Eighth Army, wearing his medal and rose, and with all the glamour surrounding a soldier of the Eighth Army—and no doubt most of our soldiers are very good looking, except those who have come into Parliament—might choose to go on a public platform or to canvass people and might say, "You can always trust the Tories, you will be safe with them." This might mean that all the glamour surrounding him would immediately be transferred to the people who were receiving this encouragement, thus leaving them to take a certain view which they might not otherwise have taken. On the other hand, you might have a young airman who took part in the Battle of Britain supporting the Socialists and speaking of the great new world which, they say, they intend to make. Again, that sentimental appeal, which surrounds everyone who fought in that amazing battle, might cause the ordinary views and natural impulses of constituents to be so changed for the moment, that the

vote they registered would not represent their real view.

Mr. John Dugdale: Does the hon. and gallant Member agree with the Secretary of State for War who, I understand, wishes to allow people in uniform to stand for Parliament, even with all that glamour which the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned?

Sir T. Moore: Standing for Parliament is an entirely different thing, because that presupposes a candidate to have character. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes it does.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that an ordinary Eighth Army soldier—

The Chairman: The hon. Member must address the Chair, otherwise he cannot be heard.

Mr. Davidson: I was about to ask whether the hon. and gallant Member was suggesting that an ordinary Eighth Army soldier, with his medals and decorations, has less character than anybody else?

Sir T. Moore: If the hon. Member had waited for me to finish my sentence he might have been more informed as to what I was about to say. It was that when a candidate stands for Parliament it is supposed that he has character, training, experience and a certain amount of wisdom for the political career on which he is about to embark, and that an airman or a soldier merely represents the valour, courage and endurance he has been able to show in the field of battle. That glamour might sway the electorate to think and vote contrary to what are their real feelings. That is why I think the Minister has been so wise in refusing to depart from the exising regulation so long as the war lasts. Whatever may happen at the end of the war in the way of relaxation will be a totally different matter, but it is essential that the restraints that are imposed to-day on preventing the public from being seduced from a just appreciation of a candidate's character, experience and qualifications should not be relaxed.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Why should not a young airman, who has a certain amount of glamour, use that appeal for political purposes, just as in the same way as the hon. and gallant Member, when


he fights in an election, uses whatever glamorous appeal he has?

Sir T. Moore: I was not conscious that I possessed the characteristic which the hon. and gallant Member possesses to such a marked degree.

Mr. Maxton: Is it charm that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) possesses?

Sir T. Moore: When I present myself to my constituents at every election, I rely on argument, good sense, wisdom and sound policy, and for that reason I have been returned on every occasion with an increasing majority. That is really the essence of the argument I want to adduce to-day, and I hope the Committee will ponder a great deal before registering any vote against the decision which has been announced by the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I trust the Committee will bear with me for a few moments. It is a considerable time since I have spoken in the House, but at one time I regularly participated in Debates of this character. On the last occasion, when an Amendment was moved with regard to the formation of soldiers' committees my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) took up the same definite attitude against that Amendment as he has taken against this Motion to-day. After a hasty consultation, my party decided to reject his wisdom on that occasion and vote for the Amendment, which was opposed by the present Secretary of State for War. I trust that Members of the Committee will examine carefully the real meaning of this Motion. The Secretary of State made great play with regard to soldiers who have slandered the Army, or have made statements in direct opposition to the war effort. But this Motion has nothing whatever to do with soldiers or civilians who overstep the mark and make treacherous or slanderous statements, or statements detrimental to the war effort.
All soldiers and civilians are governed by the present law with regard to that crime and it is no argument against this Motion—and I commend this to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street—to say that you can take a young grocer from Durham and put him into the Army

and take, after a ballot, another young man from Durham and put him into the mining industry, both of which are controlled by the Government and the National Service Acts, and say that the young miner can go to his lodge, can participate in politics and can criticise the Government, but that the young grocer in the Army cannot go back to his own friends, discuss politics and express his own opinions. That is exactly what the Motion means. Is it right that anybody should be able to go to a munition worker and say, "You are controlled by the Government, you are essential to the war effort, but you can participate fully in politics," and yet say to another person who is in the Army, "You cannot go back to your local Labour party and make a speech there or undertake for a week the duties of honorary secretary," which is what I would like to do with some of the young men who have gone from my constituency?
I, too, served in the Army in the last war but probably did not get much of a character, or any character at all, because I was a corporal twice and a private three times. I want to say quite frankly that some of the most important regiments in the British Army created very great disturbances during the last war. The regiment to which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Air belonged, the Royal Scottish Fusiliers, to which I also belonged, participated in some of those disturbances. There were protests against authority because that authority was too rigid. The Secretary of State said that a man who is home on leave cannot legitimately criticise the Government. I am dealing with the average soldier, who is just as patriotic as any Member of this House. He claims that when questions arise regarding his military status or the way in which we are going to deal after the war with those who are now fighting for us, he should have the right to say what he thinks about our plans. The average soldier who has fought and suffered and is still in the Service, is denied the right to go to people who are deciding the whole future of himself and his wife and children and express his opinion, which in 99 cases out of zoo is simply the ordinary legitimate critical opinion of the man in the street.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask a question, because I am worried by this? I am almost persuaded by the speech to


which we have just listened to vote for the Clause, but I am in this quandary. The Clause may be carried. Shall we then be asked next week to vote against it? May I ask not only my hon. Friend, with whose party I have great sympathy, but also the Secretary of State whether, if we do carry this Clause, having been over-persuaded by the Debate, we shall be asked next week to reverse it?

Mr. Davidson: Of course, being only a back bencher I cannot answer the question of my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that if there is a majority for this Clause and we are asked later to reverse it, I shall be one who will refuse to do so. Anyway, I am perfectly sure, that no matter what reply I gave it would not alter the attitude and vote of my hon. Friend. If I may continue my argument, we had many barrack-room discussions during the last war. We discussed officers and their personalities, their good points and their bad points with no uncertain opinions. We discussed certain things that took place. In this war we have an Army that is entirely different in outlook from the Army of the last war. If a sergeant in the last war had not a vocabulary that could describe a man in language that would sulphurise the atmosphere he was not considered a good sergeant. Field punishment number one in the last war meant being tied to the wheel of a cannon. Detention in the last war was very much more severe than detention to-day. I hand that to the present Government.
To-day you have millions of young men who are keenly interested in their future and if you tell them that they must fight for freedom but will not be allowed to participate in discussions about that future while they are in the Service you will have repercussions that may be very dangerous. My final word is this. We had some trouble at Dunkirk on the cessation of hostilities in the last war because men were going to be sent to the Far East, after being in France for a considerable time. The men said they were not having it. That was not a political

Division No. 15.
AYES.



Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Maxton, J.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Granville, E. L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.



Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Captain Cunningham-Reid and


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mack, J. D.
Mr. McGovern.

matter. They just wanted to go home. They were fed up with being "mucked around." They organised a resistance. It was a resistance that placed the adjutant in difficulties. It was a resistance led by sergeants, not as a result of any political discussions. It was a spontaneous explosion because of the rigidity of the law. In order to appease the men officers who were expert propagandists were sent to speak to them and dissuade them from the path they were taking. If you give men the utmost freedom, the British soldier, sailor or airman will not violate that freedom.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I had not intended to say anything until I heard thè speech from the hon. Member opposite and I rise because I think that speech should be answered. I do not think any comparison can be made between civilian life and the life of people in the Army. The Army is a fighting machine. It is essential that it should be united. We cannot have controversial elements in that machine if we are going to achieve victory. Let me put it this way. Suppose there are in the barrack room people holding views like the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and suppose there are people holding opposite views in regard to the reconstruction of the country after the war and the sort of world they are fighting for. Do you think that will make for an efficient military machine?

Mr. Montague: Have we not been told that barrack room discussions are not out of order?

Dr. Russell Thomas: I think that what we were told was that those discussions, unless they were carried too far, were overlooked. I feel that those who are opposing this regulation are influenced by the hope that in the Army they might possibly find material which would respond to the political agitation indulged in by themselves.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes 14; Noes 91.

NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Goldie, N. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Prescott, Capt, W. R. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Procter, Major H. A.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)
Guest, Li.-Col. Hn. O. (Camberwell)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Guy, W. H.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Blair, Sir R.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Hepburn, Major P. C. T. Buchan-
Spearman, A. C. M.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Hopkinson, A.
Suirdale, Viscount


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Bull, B. B.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Bullock, Capt. M.
James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.)
Thomas, Dr. W. S, Russell (S'mpton)


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Cary, R. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.
Touche, G. C.


Castlereagh, Viscount
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Lawson, J. J, (Chester-le-Street)
Wakefield, W. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Critchley, A.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Drewe, C.
Montague, F.
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.



Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Nicholson, G (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Nield, Major B. E.
Mr. A. Young and Captain


Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.
Petherick, M.
McEwen.


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Peto, Major B. A. J.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS

Ordered:
That Captain Hambro be discharged from the Committee on Public Petitions and that Sir Robert Bird be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EIRE AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. A. S. L. Young.]

Professor Savory: I should like to thank the House for the sympathy which it has shown to Ulster in the difficulties in which her citizens have been placed by the ban which has been put upon Ireland. We were sympathetically received by the Home Secretary, who went with the utmost care into all the difficult cases that we brought before him, cases of unfortunate teachers who have been prevented from going home for the Easter holidays, and who are stranded in this country, cases of nurses, even cases of expectant mothers.
This ban has undoubtedly imposed a very great deal of hardship on individuals, but my reply to the innumerable letters, amounting to at least 50 a day, which I have received has always been to appeal to the patriotism of my correspondents, and to point out that Ulster has always been prepared to make sacrifices in the national interest, especially in time of war.
Having said so much, I wish to proceed to my main thesis. In 1921 the then Prime Minister, in introducing into the House of Commons the articles of agreement for the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, signed on 6th December, 1921, referring to the Irish Free State which was about to be set up.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Professor Savory: These are the words used by the then Prime Minister in that all-important debate:
There has been complete acceptance of allegiance to the British Crown and acceptance of membership in the Empire and acceptance of common citizenship.… It brings to our side a valiant comrade.


He went on to call attention to the fact that in the Imperial War Cabinet while there were representatives present of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India there was one vacant chair; it was the chair, he said, that ought to have been filled by Ireland, and he continued:
Henceforward that chair will be filled by a willing Ireland radiant because her long quarrel with Great Britain will have been settled by the concession of liberty to her own people and she can now take her part in the partnership of Empire.… By this agreement we win to our side a nation of deep abiding and even passionate loyalties.
He concluded as follows:
There are still dangers lurking in the mists. Whence will they come? From what quarter? Who knows? When they do come I feel glad to know that Ireland will be there by our side and the old motto that 'England's danger is Ireland's opportunity' will have a new meaning. As in the case of the Dominions in 1914 our peril will be her danger. Our fears will be her anxieties, Our victories will be her joy."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 14th December, 1921; cols. 33 and 49, Vol. 149.]
In the whole of history no prophecy has been more rapidly and more decisively belied by events. By this disastrous agreement of 1921 for the first time partition was made in the United Kingdom. A most unfortunate Customs barrier was set up between one part of Ireland and another The great and immortal work of Castlereagh was undone, and the so-called "Treaty" was carried through, which as events have shown was dangerous to the security of this country. To do its authors justice, they consented to insert certain provisions to provide for the security of the country. Great attention has been paid to the provision by which the superb harbour of Lough Swilly guarding the channel to Liverpool and Glasgow, of Berehaven protecting the shores of the United Kingdom towards the Atlantic, and of Queenstown, which was the base of the whole American fleet during the last war, were at least preserved. But attention has not been sufficiently called to another vital Clause in the agreement, which was in these words:
The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces in time of war or strained relations with a foreign power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.
That vital Clause gave a very large measure of security to this country in time

of war. It remained, however, for another British Government, by the agreement of April, 1938, to abandon, without any quid pro quo, these vital Clauses. Will it be believed by future generations that that agreement abandoning these three magnificent harbours and abrogating Clause 7 which I have just read, passed through the House of Commons on Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading without a Division? It is amazing, in view of the eloquent speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister and who, in protesting against the agreement, said that he had negotiated these Clauses, and that he was advised by Admiral Beattie, when concluding the agreement of 1921, that Article 7 prescribed the "indispensable minimum of reservations for strategic security." He went on:
The Admiralty of those days assured me that without the use of these ports it would be very difficulty, perhaps almost impossible to feed this Island in time of war.… These are the essential bases from which the whole operations of hunting submarines and protecting incoming convoys is conducted.… They are the life defences of the crowded population of England.… This was the expert opinion placed before the Government which made the Irish Free State Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1938; cols. 1098–9, 1100, Vol. 335.]
Only two years later, the right hon. Gentleman had become Prime Minister, and in one of those marvellous reviews of the war situation which he makes periodically in the House of Commons, he said, on 5th November, 1940:
More serious than the air raids has been the recent recrudescence of U-boat sinkings in the Atlantic approaches to our islands. The fact that we cannot use the south and west coasts of Ireland to refuel our flotillas and aircraft, and thus protect the trade by which Ireland as well as Great Britain lives, is a most heavy and grievous burden and one which should never have been placed on our shoulders, broad though they be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1940; col. 1243, Vol. 365.]
Two days later, this eloquent speech of our Prime Minister was replied to in the Dail in Dublin by the Prime Minister of Eire, who used these words:
There can be no question of the handing over of these ports so long as this State remains neutral. There can be no question of leasing these ports. They are ours. They are within our sovereignty, and there can be no question, as long as we remain neutral, of handing them over on any condition whatsoever. Any attempt to bring pressure to bear on us by any side—and by any of the belligerents—by Britain—could only lead to bloodshed.


Many of our friends in the House of Commons have said to me in the smoking-room, the tea-room and elsewhere, "If Northern Ireland would join with Southern Ireland and would form a united Ireland, then you can be quite sure that Southern Ireland would throw in her lot with us and would assist us in our difficulties and in our fight for our very existence."
In order to show how ill-founded this statement is, let me read an interview which Mr. de Valera gave to the American Press on 20th November, 1940. He was asked by his interviewer:
Would you abandon neutrality, if the British agreed to end partition and let Northern Ireland unite with Southern Ireland?
That was a question which was perfectly clear and to which Mr. de Valera replied as follows:
That is to ask: Shall we barter our right to freedom in order to secure our right to unity? The Irish nation is entitled to both these rights and ought not to be asked to sacrifice one to secure the other. We are entitled to freedom as well as unity—and there is no more important matter in which that freedom can be exercised, than in the choice of peace or war.
Listen to the last words:
To suggest that the undoing of partition might be made dependent on our going into this war, is to fail to understand our whole position.
This word "partition" has been used, again and again, by Mr. de Valera. In his reply to the American demand that the German and Japanese representatives should be dismissed from Dublin, he made as one of his principal points the "forced partition" of Ireland.
Now I have not time to develop that point and I do not want to repeat what I said on the Motion for the Address in reply to the King's Speech, when I showed that this partition, so far from being forced, has, three times, been voluntarily accepted by Southern Ireland, in 1916, in 1921 and in 1925, and on the last occasion by a Tripartite Agreement, signed on behalf of Great Britain by, among other signatories, the present Prime Minister, on behalf of the Free State by its President and others, and on behalf of Northern Ireland by Lord Craigavon. Under this Tripartite Agreement of December, 1925, Southern Ireland agreed to confirm the existing boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland.

That was passed by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of the Free State Parliament. It became a law of the Free State.
Let us remember that the Free State acquired a most substantial quid pro quo because, as part of that agreement, Clause 5 of the so-called Treaty of 1921 was abrogated, under which the Free State had undertaken to pay her fair share of the cost of the war and of the National Debt. Mr. Baldwin, then Prime Minister, estimated in this House of Commons this liability at £150,000,000. That was confirmed by Lord Birkenhead in the House of Lords. Mr. de Valera said it amounted to a liability of £19,000,000 per annum. By an act of amazing generosity on the part of the British Government, this enormous liability, which Mr. Cosgrave had said was weighing on the credit of the Free State, making it almost impossible for them to launch loans in London or New York, was abrogated in 1925.
That did not however prevent Mr. de Valera from adopting in 1937 an entirely new Constitution—of the legality of which I have the gravest doubt, although I have not time to develop that point now—which was for a
'sovereign, independent democratic State' of Ireland, consisting of the whole island of Ireland, its islands, and the territorial seas, under the name of 'Eire,' or, in the English language, Ireland,
that is to say a claim, in spite of the agreement of 1925, to the whole of Ireland. This claim was again put forward in January, 1942, when Mr. de Valera protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. The protest was made in Washington by Robert Brennan, the Eire Minister, to President Roosevelt and was handed to the Secretary of State for the Dominions here in London by the High Commissioner. It protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland over which Mr. de Valera has no jurisdiction whatever.
With regard to the question of neutrality, I have never, nor has anyone in Northern Ireland ever, disputed the right of Eire as a Dominion not to take part in this war. That is evident from Dominion status, because, in order to carry on a war, you first have to demand supplies from your Parliament. The Parliament of a Dominion can refuse to vote supplies. But I maintain that, for any


part of the British Commonwealth of Nations to retain representatives of the Axis Powers, is ultra vires, and is inconsistent with membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have searched in vain among all the constitutional authorities that I have been able to get hold of, and I have not found one that ventures to maintain that such a state of affairs is constitutional or consistent with the Statute of Westminster.
One of the greatest of our Dominion statesmen, Lord Bennett, former Prime Minister of Canada, who himself carried through the Parliament at Ottawa the Statute of Westminster—a great statesman and a very great lawyer—has used these words, in referring to the present Constitution of Eire:
Is the presence of representatives of enemy States within the territory of a Dominion consistent with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster? Can the legations of warring enemies of the British Commonwealth of Nations be legally or honourably maintained within the territory of a member of that Commonwealth?
Those questions were put by Lord Bennett, and he answered them at very considerable length in the negative. He said that it was "obviously an impossible and ridiculous situation."
What is the disadvantage from which we are suffering by the maintenance of these hostile Ministries and Legations in Dublin? Mr. de Valera's own paper, the "Irish Press," made a statement on the matter, quoting from the "New York Times." When presenting his request Mr. Gray, the representative of the United States in Dublin, is said to have pointed out that:
The large number of Irish citizens working in Britain afforded an excellent opportunity for the Germans and Japanese to plant members of the Irish Republican Army in British factories and in military establishments in Northern Ireland, where the Allies have large military forces. Among the evidence presented to Mr. de Valera to show that the I.R.A. was planning to co-operate with the enemy was a document captured by the Royal Ulster Constabulary showing a detailed map of the coast of Northern Ireland with all inlets, bays and beaches marked, and the depth of water indicated at all different states of the tides.
The Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, speaking in the House of Commons at Stormont on 11th March, 1943, quoted two resolutions which had been discovered, at the cost of a fight and a

fusillade in Belfast. They relate to the Northern Command of the I.R.A. and are:
Proposed and seconded by delegates from the fourth area that if German Forces should enter Ireland with the consent of the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic, the Irish Republican Army should assist the German Forces. Passed unanimously.
That the political squad of the C.I.D."—
that is the Criminal Investigation Department—
be executed. Proposed and seconded by delegates from the fourth area and passed unanimously.
I have an immense amount of other material, all public. I shall not disclose the secret information which I have, but I have a large number of documents here to show the danger of these enemy Legations being maintained in Dublin. But on account of our regulations, this Debate must close in a few minutes and I must, in all fairness, give the rest of the time to the hon. Gentleman who has been good enough to come here in order to reply to me. Therefore, I must desist from giving this evidence, but believe me I have it here in my possession. I do feel very strongly that the position is one which it is not possible for us to tolerate, and that we should not have waited for the action of the United States. As I said at the time, in September, 1939, when war broke out, the British Government should then have put forward a demand to Eire to dismiss the Axis representatives from Dublin.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): My hon. Friend has explained the history of partition in detail, and with a wealth of local and historical knowledge with which he will not expect me to compete. The facts, so far as I am aware, are not in dispute. The Treaty of 1921 could never have been concluded at all, if the Southern Irish leaders had not agreed lo the separation of Northern Ireland, under a separate Government and under a separate Parliament. The further agreement of 1925, to which my hon. Friend referred, concerning the final border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, as it was called in those days, was approved, as he says, by Parliament, both in this country and in Dublin. No doubt it may well be that there are many people at the present time who say in 1944, that what was done in 1921 or 1925 was contrary to their view. What is


said, however, does not alter the fact that on two occasions partition was agreed to by Eire, and has actually been embodied in a Treaty.
My hon. Friend referred to the present position of Northern Ireland and its importance in relation to the conduct of the war. As the whole House fully appreciates, the fact that Northern Ireland has been a separate entity and is part of the United Kingdom has, in this war, proved vital to this country. Without Northern Ireland, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to protect the shipping on which our very life depends. Not only we ourselves, but our Allies and particularly our American Allies, have benefited. It has been possible to give effective protection to their troops coming across the Atlantic to this country, and the House also knows, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that American troops have actually been stationed in Northern Ireland. But this war has shown more clearly than ever, that the defence of these islands must be treated as a whole. As my hon. Friend pointed out in the course of his speech, the surrender of the Treaty ports undoubtedly added to our difficulties in the early part of the war, when we were so hard pressed. I need not enlarge on this aspect of the question to which the House is only too fully alive. Northern Ireland has contributed in full measure to the war effort in the same way as other parts of the United Kingdom. It would not be too much to say that, both from the point of view of strategy and in the general war effort, the separate existence of Northern Ireland has been a factor of the greatest importance. My hon. Friend may rest assured that those services which have been of so much value to our cause will not be forgotten either by this House or by the country.
My hon. Friend touched on the question of the right of a Dominion to decide whether it would take part in a war or not. He said he had no objection to the line which the Eire Government had decided to take, but he then went into what I can only describe as a very complicated and legal constitutional question, to which the Prime Minister referred in the course of a reply to a Question a few days ago. I would not like, especially in a short speech at the end of a Debate on the Adjournment such as this, to go into this complicated matter. But the

presence of the Axis Legations is, in the view of the Government, very undesirable. As my hon. Friend knows the American Government very recently presented a Note to Mr. de Valera and we have given our full support to them. I can give him this assurance: that the position with regard to the presence of the Axis Legations—and I can say quite definitely that the Government would be very glad to see them out of Ireland—is being very carefully watched.
There is one other point on which my hon. Friend touched, that is the hardship which is undoubtedly suffered in Northern Ireland at the present time. Certain restrictions are imposed on the people which, undoubtedly, cause a great inconvenience and, indeed, as I have said, hardship. This country, however, and Northern Ireland are a base of operations against Germany, and we are, therefore, all bound to suffer certain hardships. People here are suffering from the imposition of the ban on the coastal area, from the Wash to Lands End, and they are bearing it willingly. I think it is not unfair to ask the people of Northern Ireland to share these inconveniences and hardships which have been imposed upon them.
They are, after all, a part of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that they are willing and anxious to take their share and bear their part in the necessary burdens laid upon us all. It is true, as the Home Secretary said in reply to a Question recently, that we are faced with certain geographical facts which make the restrictions with regard to Northern Ireland different, in some respects, from those placed on the people of this country, but such facts are, of course, inescapable. It is not possible to maintain rigid control of the border, so as to prevent a leakage of information from Northern Ireland into Eire. It is, therefore, necessary to prevent a leakage into both parts of Ireland. While, therefore, the Government have the greatest sympathy with Northern Ireland, I have every confidence that they will accept the measures which are necessary in the interests of the common military effort.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In the minute that remains, I would like to ask whether it would be possible for the Government to try to get across the President and Government of


Eire, to the people of Eire? We know that, at the moment, owing to censorship, it is difficult to get anything into print. But through radio and other means, could we tell them that we recognise most fully that there are thousands of their gallant young men fighting and dying with us, but at the same time we want the glory

of those young men to continue and not to be spoiled by this ridiculous and stupid attitude which Mr. de Valera's Government have taken against Britain, on the question of neutrality and supporting her enemies? Could that be done?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.